Find all references to a function entry point by name or address. Use it to identify callers and cross-references during Ghidra analysis.
List references to a function's entry point, by name or (preferably) address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| address | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only listing, does not mention pagination despite limit/offset params, and gives no sense of the result volume or semantics of a cross-reference.
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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the input guidance appended. Efficient, though barely more than a name restatement plus one hint.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description should say more about read-only behavior and the limit/offset pagination it exposes. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no help. The description clarifies the name-vs-address choice and expresses a preference for address, covering 2 of 4 parameters, but leaves limit and offset completely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 specific verb+resource: 'List references to a function's entry point.' The phrase 'entry point' and 'xrefs' is fairly specific, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_xrefs_to or get_function_calls, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
The parenthetical '(preferably) address' hints at input preference, which is genuine guidance, but there is no statement of when to use this versus get_xrefs_to or get_xrefs_from. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.