Retrieve defined strings and their addresses from a binary, with optional case-insensitive substring filtering to locate specific text.
List defined strings with their addresses, optionally filtered by a case-insensitive substring of the content.
| 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 must carry the behavioural load; it does disclose that matching is a case-insensitive substring and that results include addresses, which implies a read-only listing. It omits pagination behaviour (the 200/0 defaults), result ordering, and whether the limit silently truncates, which matter for an unhinted tool.
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 resource, the returned data, and the filter behaviour all appear before any optional detail.
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 no explanation, and this is a simple list tool. Still, for an unannotated tool with three undocumented parameters, the description should say at least that results are paginated and whether the limit is a cap, which it does not.
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 must explain all three parameters, yet it only clarifies 'filter' (case-insensitive substring of content). 'limit' and 'offset' are never mentioned, leaving their paging semantics and default cap entirely to inference from bare schema defaults.
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 ('List defined strings') and adds what the result contains ('with their addresses'), which is enough to distinguish it from list_functions, list_data_items, and list_imports. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with them, so it stops short of a 5.
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 phrase 'optionally filtered by a case-insensitive substring of the content' implies when the filter is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of how to page through results or when to prefer a name/address-based sibling such as list_data_items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.