List fully qualified names of all non-global namespaces, with limit and offset pagination, to inspect scope structure during Ghidra reverse engineering.
List all non-global namespaces (fully qualified names).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about pagination (despite limit/offset defaults of 100/0), result ordering, or whether global namespaces are excluded intentionally. The 'non-global' scoping is the only behavioral hint offered.
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 scoping constraint front-loaded. Efficient, though the brevity here reflects thin content rather than disciplined editing.
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-value explanation is not required, and this is a simple two-parameter read tool. Still, the pagination behavior and the exact definition of 'namespace' in this domain are left implicit.
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 neither the schema nor the description explains limit or offset. The description contributes no parameter information at all, leaving the pagination contract unstated.
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 and resource ('List all non-global namespaces') and clarifies the returned form ('fully qualified names'). The resource is distinct from the sibling listing tools (functions, classes, segments, imports), though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many list_* siblings. The agent must infer that this is the namespace-enumeration entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.