Skip to main content
Glama
I-CAN-hack

ghidra-mcp

by I-CAN-hack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

decompile

Convert a target address or function in a Ghidra program into readable C-like pseudocode, helping you analyze binary behavior without manual assembly.

Instructions

Decompile the function at or containing target.

Args:
    target: Value accepted by the bridge's `toAddr`, such as `0x401000`,
        `FUN_00401000`, or an exact label/function name. The function at or
        containing the resolved address is decompiled.
    program: Required Ghidra project path or name to target.
    timeout: Decompiler timeout in seconds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
programYes
timeoutNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that addresses may be inside a function and that the containing function is resolved, and it mentions timeout behavior. It does not state side effects, whether analysis is triggered, or read-only guarantees, but the main behavior is adequately 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 in the first sentence, followed by a tight Args block. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler or 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?

Combined with the output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, resolution behavior, and timeout. It could add an explicit comparison to disassemble, but nothing essential to correctly invoking the tool is missing.

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%, so the description must fully document parameters. It explains target with valid forms and resolution semantics, states that program is required, and defines timeout. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Decompile the function at or containing target.' It also gives concrete address/label examples)Skip and clearly differentiates from reading raw bytes or disassembling by targeting functions, which positions it against sibling tools.

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?

Provides useful invocation context such as required program and accepted target forms, and implies use for decompiling functions. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose decompile over disassemble or other reading tools, and gives no when-not guidance.

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