Skip to main content
Glama
I-CAN-hack
by I-CAN-hack

list_instructions

List disassembled instructions at a given address or label, showing address, raw bytes, and instruction text. Limit results by end address, byte length, or maximum count.

Instructions

List disassembled instructions starting at an address or label.

The result is a compact, hexdump-style text view with one instruction per
line: address, raw bytes, and instruction text. Pass either `end` for an
inclusive address range or `length` for a byte count. `max_count` limits
returned instructions; use 0 or None for no instruction-count limit.

Args:
    target: Start address, exact label, or function name.
    program: Required Ghidra project path or name to target.
    end: Optional inclusive end address.
    length: Optional byte length from target.
    max_count: Maximum instructions to return. Use 0 or None for no limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNo
lengthNo
targetYes
programYes
max_countNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 does well by describing the hexdump-style output format, the inclusive end address, byte-count length, and the max_count behavior. It does not cover failure modes or what happens when no instructions are found, but the provided details are substantial.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and output format, then moves to range options and parameter details. Every section earns its place, and the Args block is tidy and non-redundant given the schema has no descriptions.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the essential invocation details, output shape, and edge cases for max_count. It is nearly complete, but it would be stronger with an explicit contrast to the 'disassemble' sibling tool.

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 fully compensates. It explains each parameter in prose: target accepts an address, exact label, or function name; program is required; end is an inclusive address; length is a byte count; and max_count has explicit no-limit semantics via 0 or None.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists disassembled instructions starting at an address or label and describes the output format. It is specific about what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'disassemble', so it misses the top score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'disassemble' or other alternatives. The description does explain the choice between 'end' and 'length', but that is parameter-level guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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