Lists functions from a Ghidra analysis by name and entry address, optionally filtered by a case-insensitive substring. Use to navigate and identify functions during reverse engineering.
List functions (name and entry address), optionally filtered by a case-insensitive substring of the name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| offset | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return payload (name and entry address) and the case-insensitive filter semantics, but says nothing about pagination/ordering behavior despite limit/offset parameters, and never confirms the operation is a safe read.
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; the scope and return fields come first. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.
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 re-explained, and the description does state the fields returned. However, for a paginated list tool it omits pagination semantics and gives no routing versus the overlapping search_functions_by_name sibling.
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% and there are 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only 'filter' (case-insensitive substring of the name) and leaves 'limit' and 'offset' completely undocumented, so two of three parameters carry no semantics anywhere.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List functions') and even names the returned fields (name and entry address). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling search_functions_by_name, which also filters functions by 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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The stated 'filter by name substring' behavior overlaps heavily with the sibling search_functions_by_name, and the description never resolves which one an agent should pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.