Skip to main content
Glama
JeanExtreme002

PyMemoryEditor

Official

find_pointer_paths

Read-only

Reverse-scan a dynamic address for static pointer paths rooted in a module, turning one-off finds into reusable chains for later runs.

Instructions

Reverse-scan for static pointer paths that reach an address.

The inverse of resolve_pointer_chain, and the step that turns a throwaway find into something reusable: an address from scan_value is different every run, but a path rooted in a module's image is the same recipe every time. Run this on the address you confirmed, then replay the best path in the next run with resolve_pointer_chain.

:param target_address: the dynamic address to find paths to. :param max_depth: pointer levels to follow. Cost grows sharply with depth; 1–4 is the useful range and 3 is a good default. A chain needs at least one level, so 0 clamps to 1 rather than to the default — and null means "use the default", as it does for every argument here. :param max_offset: largest offset a single hop may add — effectively the assumed struct size. Larger finds more and noisier paths. An explicit 0 is meaningful rather than "unset": it keeps only hops that point exactly at the address. null means "use the default" (1024), not 0. :param max_results: stop after this many paths.

This is the most expensive tool here, and it runs in two phases: it maps every pointer in the target's writable memory, then walks that map backwards. The server's time budget bounds both phases, so a walk that runs out of time returns the paths found so far with timed_out. Expect seconds to minutes on a large process, and start shallow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_depthNo
max_offsetNo
session_idYes
max_resultsNo
target_addressYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent), and the description adds substantial context on top: two-phase execution, cost growth with depth, server time budget, partial results returned with a timed_out field, and seconds-to-minutes runtime on a large process. This is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then parameters, then the cost warning — a sensible order for an expensive tool. The 'null means use the default, as it does for every argument here' clause is stated twice and the cost discussion runs long, but nearly every sentence carries operational information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still flags the one return detail that changes caller behavior (partial results plus timed_out). For a high-cost, high-parameter-count tool, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 carries the full burden, and it does so for four of five parameters, including the non-obvious edge cases the schema cannot express: depth 0 clamps to 1 rather than the default, offset 0 is a meaningful exact-match constraint rather than 'unset', 1024 is the offset default, and null universally means 'use the default'. Only session_id receives no explanation.

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 — 'reverse-scan for static pointer paths that reach an address' — and immediately positions itself as 'the inverse of resolve_pointer_chain', naming the sibling it complements. An agent can distinguish it from scan_value, refine_scan, and resolve_pointer_chain without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit workflow: run this on the address you confirmed with scan_value, then replay the best path next run via resolve_pointer_chain, and 'start shallow' as a cost-control rule. Both the when-to-use and the alternative/next-step tool are named, with the rationale (dynamic address vs. reusable module-rooted path) supplied.

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