Lists documents in the current Ghidra ELF session so you can inspect the loaded binary and choose what to analyze. Optionally retains results in an investigation project.
List documents in the current Ghidra ELF session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| analysis_project_id | No | Optional investigation to retain this tool result in. Does not prove target identity or causal relationships. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover idempotence, openness, and destructiveness, so the description's burden is lower, but it adds nothing about whether listing triggers side effects or returns empty results. Notably the annotations say readOnlyHint=false while "List" implies a pure read — the description does not explain this tension (e.g. that results are retained in an investigation).
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste or filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of not defining the resource.
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?
With no output schema and an undefined resource noun, the description leaves the agent unsure what a returned document is or how to interpret results. For a tool in a crowded listing family, this is incomplete despite the simple one-parameter schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter analysis_project_id is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter or about default behavior when it is omitted.
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?
States a verb (List) and a resource (documents) and scopes it to the current Ghidra ELF session, which is more than the name alone provides. However, "documents" is never defined, so an agent cannot tell whether these are analysis reports, notes, findings, or binary artifacts, nor how they differ from siblings like list_evidence or list_names.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With dozens of listing siblings (list_names, list_procedures, list_segments, list_evidence), the absence of any routing hint leaves the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.