Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@re-vtil lift this handler at 0x140000000 and emit pseudo-C"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP server for VTIL-Core (Virtual-machine Translation Intermediate Language, MIT). The "lift, optimize, emit pseudo-C" trio for VM handler characterization.
The other RE-AI MCP servers handle byte-level binary analysis (re-lief, re-rizin, re-triton). They tell you what a handler does in machine code, but not what it means in a higher-level IL.
re-vtil fills that gap. You give it a function's machine code, it lifts to VTIL's IL, you run optimization passes, and you get a pseudo-C reading. The use case is the encrypted-VM handler characterization in re-encrypted-vm-tamper — once you know which bytes are a handler, re-vtil tells you what those bytes mean.
Related MCP server: GhidraMCP
The Python MCP server is a thin wrapper around a C++ vtil-cli helper built by install.sh from the vendored VTIL-Core source tree:
Claude Code (MCP stdio)
│
▼
re-vtil server (Python, this directory)
│ subprocess.run(...)
▼
vtil-cli (C++ single binary, built from src/re_vtil/cpp/VtilCli/)
│
└─ VTIL-Core (vendored as a git submodule)The subprocess boundary is intentional: VTIL is a heavy C++ library with no first-class Python bindings. Process isolation is robust; the Python server always loads in degraded mode if the C++ helper is missing.
Tool | What it does |
| Health check — return VTIL version + supported archs |
| Lift machine code (base64) at a given base address to VTIL IL |
| Run VTIL optimization passes (dead-store-elim, branch-folding, mem-dep) |
| Emit a C-like pseudocode reading of an IL tree |
./install.sh builds vtil-cli via cmake --build against the vendored VTIL-Core source tree, then copies the binary to servers/re-vtil/bin/.
To build standalone (requires VTIL-Core source + cmake):
cd servers/re-vtil/src/re_vtil/cpp/VtilCli
cmake -B build -S .
cmake --build build --config Release
cp build/vtil-cli ../../../../bin/To run:
re-vtil # stdio transport (default for MCP)
python -m re_vtil # equivalentVTIL-Core source tree (vendored as a submodule under src/re_vtil/cpp/)
CMake ≥ 3.16
A C++20 compiler (gcc-10+, clang-12+, MSVC 2019+)
capstone + z3 (the C++ helper links against the same deps as re-triton)
If vtil-cli is not built, every tool returns {"status": "WARN", "error": "vtil-cli not built; run install.sh", ...}. The Python MCP server itself always loads so Claude Code can surface the install hint.
re-tritonre-triton handles concrete + symbolic execution (Triton lifts to its own AST, evaluates with a concrete or symbolic state). re-vtil handles static IL (VTIL lifts to its own IL, runs IR-level optimization, emits pseudo-C). The two are complementary:
Use re-triton.solve_constraint for "what input reaches this branch?"
Use re-vtil.lift_handler + optimize + emit_pseudo_c for "what does this handler do in the abstract?"
For the encrypted-VM bytecode family: re-triton.emulate_function runs the encrypted handler under concrete inputs (decryption stub triggers, handler dispatches); re-vtil.lift_handler lifts the decrypted handler body to VTIL IL for the static read.
Return vtil-cli version + supported architectures.
Reports WARN (not ERROR) when the vtil-cli binary is
not found — the Python server itself always loads. The fallback
chain: $RE_VTIL_CLI_PATH -> <server>/bin/vtil-cli -> PATH.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that WARN (not ERROR) is reported when binary is missing, and details the fallback chain for finding the binary.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: three lines, front-loaded with the main purpose, then behavioral details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete in explaining the tool's functionality and fallback behavior. Could slightly improve by noting it is a health check tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Return vtil-cli version + supported architectures,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like lift_handler and optimize, which are for code manipulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description implies the tool is for checking the environment, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Emit a pseudo-C reading of a lifted IL tree.
The output is best-effort — VTIL's emulator walks the IL
and produces a C-like pseudocode that an analyst can read. The
quality is much lower than IDA Hex-Rays or Ghidra's
decompiler; the use case is a quick first-pass read of a VM
handler body, not a full decompilation.
Args:
il: the IL tree (raw from lift_handler or optimized
via :func:optimize)
Returns::
{"code": "C-like pseudocode...", "il_block_count": N}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| il | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently states the output is best-effort and low quality, and explicitly lists the return format (code and il_block_count). No side effects or auth needs are mentioned, but these are not expected for a read-only emit function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, followed by a brief explanation of quality and use case, then structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input source and output format. However, since the schema coverage is 0% and the parameter is a nested object, more detail on the il object's expected structure would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, il, is explained as the IL tree (raw from lift_handler or optimized via optimize). This adds value beyond the schema, which only specifies type: object. The context covers the parameter's origin and variants, though it does not detail expected keys or structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: emit a pseudo-C reading of a lifted IL tree. The verb 'emit' and resource 'pseudo-C reading' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like lift_handler or optimize, which focus on different stages of the pipeline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use the tool (quick first-pass read of VM handler body) and notes its limitations compared to IDA Hex-Rays or Ghidra. It also hints that the input can come from lift_handler or be optimized via optimize, but does not explicitly exclude other uses or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lift arch / code to VTIL intermediate language.
Args:
arch: target architecture — one of x86, x86_64,
aarch64, arm32
code: machine-code bytes, base64-encoded (base64 is
transport-friendly; the CLI decodes back to bytes
before passing to VTIL's lifters)
base_address: where the code is mapped in virtual memory
(default 0x400000 — the ELF .text convention)
Returns::
{"arch": "x86_64", "base_address": 0x400000,
"il": {"blocks": [{"vaddr": N, "instructions": [...]}]}}Each lifted instruction is one of VTIL's IL primitives
(mov, add, sub, jmp, if, vmov, etc.).
The structure is enough for optimize and emit to work
on the output.
On a missing binary, returns {"status": "WARN", "error": "vtil-cli not built", ...} so the agent knows to retry
after install.sh.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arch | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| base_address | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the output structure and an error case for missing binary, but does not mention side effects, safety, or non-destructive nature, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and each sentence adds value. It is slightly verbose but not wasteful; front-loads the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers input details, output structure, error handling, and implies a workflow with siblings. It is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: 'arch' with enumerated values, 'code' with base64 encoding rationale, and 'base_address' with default and context. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('Lift') and the resources ('arch' and 'code' to VTIL IL), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'optimize' and 'emit' by being the entry point for lifting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (output is usable by 'optimize' and 'emit') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run VTIL optimization passes over a lifted IL tree.
Args:
il: the IL tree produced by :func:lift_handler
passes: list of pass names to apply in order. The canonical
set is dead_store_elimination, branch_folding,
mem_dependency; pass names are the C++ enum names
in VTIL's optimizer::pass_index.
Returns::
{"il": <optimized il>, "passes_applied": [...]}The output IL is in the same shape as the input — drop-in
replacement for downstream emit calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| il | Yes | ||
| passes | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an optimized IL with a list of applied passes, and that the output shape matches input. It does not mention whether the input is mutated or side effects, but the context implies non-destructive optimization.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear docstring format: a single sentence for purpose, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: input source, pass selection, return format, and relation to sibling tools. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: 'il' is described as 'the IL tree produced by lift_handler', and 'passes' explains the canonical set and that pass names are C++ enum names. This compensates for 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run VTIL optimization passes over a lifted IL tree.' It includes a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'lift_handler' and 'emit_pseudo_c' by focusing on optimization passes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the input (IL tree from lift_handler) and the canonical passes, plus that the output is a drop-in replacement for downstream emit calls. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like 'simplify_lifted_il' but provides sufficient context for proper usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run the curated default pass set on a lifted IL tree.
The canonical pass order comes from
data/ollvm-pass-catalog.json::_meta.default_pass_order and
is curated for the encrypted-VM bytecode handler-lift case
(MBA-fold + opaque-predicate-eval + control-flow-unflatten
on top of the d810-ng default set).
Args:
il: the IL tree produced by :func:lift_handler
passes: optional override; when None, the curated
default order is used.
default_preset: "d810-ng" (the curated set), or
"none" to disable simplification entirely.
Returns::
{"il": <optimized il>, "passes_applied": [...],
"preset": "d810-ng"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| il | Yes | ||
| passes | No | ||
| default_preset | No | d810-ng |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description is sole source. It describes passes applied and return value but does not discuss side effects, error handling, or destructive nature. Moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, description covers parameters and return format adequately. However, missing details on error handling and input validation. Fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% but description adds context: il is from lift_handler, passes can be None, default_preset options are given. Adds meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs a curated default pass set on a lifted IL tree, specifying the use case for encrypted-VM bytecode handler-lift. It distinguishes from siblings by naming specific pass set and referencing lift_handler output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it should be used after lift_handler but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like 'optimize' or 'check_vtil'. No when-not or alternative tools mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0check_vtilemit_pseudo_clift_handleroptimizesimplify_lifted_ilEach tool targets a distinct operation: checking the CLI, lifting code, optimizing IL generically, optimizing with a curated preset, and emitting pseudocode. There is no functional overlap.
Names follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores, mostly consistent (check_vtil, emit_pseudo_c, lift_handler, optimize, simplify_lifted_il). The verb 'simplify' is slightly different from 'optimize', but both are clear and the pattern is predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a binary lifting MCP server: verification, lifting, two optimization variants, and output. Neither too few nor too many.
The core workflow (lift -> optimize -> emit) is fully covered. The only minor gap is the lack of a tool for raw IL inspection or comparison, but the provided set is sufficient for typical reverse engineering tasks.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Ground-truth code graph for your codebase: exact callers, callees, symbols & dependencies.
Hunt zero-days by talking to binaries. 40+ tools. Hosted, OAuth + SSO, invite: hi@byteray.ai
AI-powered codebase analysis — call graphs, security, dead code, complexity. 150+ tools.
Linux kernel CVE analyzer: upload a .config, get a CycloneDX VEX report of affecting CVEs.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Heretek-RE/re-vtil'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
