List all references to a given address and identify the function each reference originates from, helping trace code and data usage during Ghidra analysis.
List references to an address, with the function each reference comes from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| address | Yes |
| 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 discloses that the result is a list of references and that each reference includes its originating function, which is useful. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, does not describe pagination behavior via limit/offset, or mention any error conditions.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and the key output detail immediately.
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 fully described. Still, for a tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description omits parameter semantics and alternative-tool guidance. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It implies the address parameter but says nothing about the limit or offset parameters, their defaults, or pagination semantics. Two of the three parameters are effectively undocumented.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: listing references to an address. It also clarifies the output includes the function each reference comes from, which distinguishes it from a generic listing. However, it does not explicitly name the inverse sibling get_xrefs_from, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name.
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?
Usage is implied: use this when you need incoming references to a given address. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_xrefs_from, get_function_xrefs, or other sibling tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.