Skip to main content
Glama
I-CAN-hack

ghidra-mcp

by I-CAN-hack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

comment

Places Ghidra listing annotations at addresses, labels, or function entry points, supporting plate, pre, eol, repeatable, and post annotation types to clarify code during reverse engineering.

Instructions

Set a Ghidra comment at an address, label, or function.

The comment is written at the resolved address. Function names resolve to
the function entry point. Supported comment types match Ghidra's listing
comment slots: `plate`, `pre`, `eol`, `repeatable`, and `post`.

Args:
    target: Address, exact label, or function name to comment.
    text: Replacement comment text.
    program: Required Ghidra project path or name to target.
    comment_type: One of `plate`, `pre`, `eol`, `repeatable`, or `post`.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
targetYes
programYes
comment_typeNoplate

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds useful behavioral detail: comments are written at the resolved address, function names resolve to their entry point, and text is a replacement. It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but the core behavior is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose, compact sentences, and a structured Args section. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, resolution behavior, comment types, and all parameters. Output schema exists, so return details are unnecessary. It could explicitly state that existing comments are overwritten, but 'Replacement comment text' implies it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args block fully compensates. It explains target types, the role of text, the required program, and enumerates allowed values for comment_type. This is more than what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Set'), a clear resource ('Ghidra comment'), and target scopes (address, label, function). It also enumerates comment types, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like clear and rename.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states when to use the tool (to set or replace a comment at a target), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'clear' are not referenced, so the usage context is clear but not formally differentiated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools