List open Ghidra programs and determine which one is currently active.
List the open Ghidra programs and the one that is currently active.
Program identifiers are based on the current Ghidra project name/path, not the original imported filename.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key behavioral nuance about identifier naming (project name/path vs. imported filename), which is valuable. However, it does not describe the output format or whether the active program is marked in a specific way, leaving some behavioral details unspecified.
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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and adds a clarifying detail about identifiers. Every sentence earns its place with 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?
For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description is largely complete. It explains what is listed and the naming nuance. The only minor gap is not describing the output schema structure, but since an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values in detail.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters.
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: listing open Ghidra programs and identifying the active one. It also provides a useful distinction about program identifiers being based on project name/path rather than the original imported filename, which helps avoid confusion.
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 this is a read-only listing tool with no parameters, and its context is clear for an agent needing to know what programs are open. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., Ghidra must be running with programs open).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.