Lists recognized strings from the active ELF analysis, helping inspect native binaries and identify embedded text.
List recognized strings in the active ELF analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No | ||
| document | No | ||
| 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description never explains the surprising non-read-only flag or its likely cause (the analysis_project_id retention side effect). It discloses nothing about result volume, truncation, pagination, or ordering for what is inherently an unbounded listing.
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 filler or repetition. Its compactness reflects under-specification rather than tight editing, but nothing in the text wastes space.
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-required-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool with two undocumented filters, the description should say what gets returned and how the optional filters narrow it. It leaves the agent unable to predict output shape or the effect of address/document, and does not reconcile the non-read-only annotation.
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 33%: only analysis_project_id is documented in the schema, while the address filter (hex or module:offset pattern) and document selector are undocumented. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the gap or clarify whether address filters strings by location.
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?
Specific verb and resource ("List recognized strings") scoped to "the active ELF analysis", so the agent knows this is a bulk enumeration over the currently open binary. It never names the sibling search_strings, so the boundary between listing all strings and filtering them is left to inference.
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 statement of when to choose this over search_strings, list_names, read_bytes, or xrefs, nor any prerequisite such as needing an open binary session. The phrase "active ELF analysis" only implicitly hints at a prior open_binary session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.