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

memory_map

List memory blocks with address ranges, sizes, and permissions, or update flags for a selected block in a Ghidra program.

Instructions

List memory blocks, or update permission flags for one memory block.

With no `target`, this returns every block in the program memory map with
address range, size, permissions, initialization state, source name, and
comment. With `target`, select a block either by exact block name or by an
address contained in the block. Passing any permission argument changes that
block's corresponding flag before returning the updated block record.

Args:
    program: Required Ghidra project path or name to target.
    target: Optional block name or address inside a block.
    read: Optional read permission value for the selected block.
    write: Optional write permission value for the selected block.
    execute: Optional execute permission value for the selected block.
    volatile: Optional volatile flag value for the selected block.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
readNo
writeNo
targetNo
executeNo
programYes
volatileNo

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that passing any permission argument mutates the block's flag and that the tool returns the updated block record. It also clarifies the selection semantics (exact name or contained address). It does not mention side effects like persistence or reversibility, but the core read-vs-write behavior is transparent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with a two-sentence summary followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the dual-mode behavior is front-loaded. The Args list is slightly verbose but appropriate for six parameters.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, so the description must cover both modes and parameter semantics. It does so adequately, including the return behavior for updates. It could mention what the list response contains, but the output schema likely covers that, and the description already names the fields returned.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains the role of each parameter: program is the required target project, target selects a block, and read/write/execute/volatile are optional permission values. It also adds the crucial semantic that passing any permission argument changes the flag, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 precise verb-resource pair ('List memory blocks, or update permission flags for one memory block') and then details both modes. It clearly distinguishes the list-all behavior from the targeted-update behavior, which separates it from sibling tools like list_instructions or read_data.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use each mode: no target returns all blocks, target selects a block by name or address, and passing a permission argument triggers an update. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the mode-based guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when to call this tool.

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