Inspect program memory as hex and ASCII up to 4096 bytes; unmapped or uninitialized bytes appear as '??' and are listed in gaps.
Read up to 4096 bytes of program memory as hex and ASCII. Unmapped or uninitialized
bytes are shown as '??' and listed in gaps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| length | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does add real behavior: the 4096-byte cap and the treatment of unmapped/uninitialized bytes as '??' reported in `gaps`. It omits any note on permissions, whether reads can fail on invalid addresses, or error behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and its bound. Every clause earns its place — no filler or redundancy.
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?
Since an output schema exists, return-value explanation is not required, and the gap/hex behavior is a useful bonus. However, the key operational detail for correct invocation — the address format expected by the required parameter — is missing, and no usage context is given for a tool with many read-oriented siblings.
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 compensate. It only implicitly constrains `length` via the 4096-byte cap, and says nothing about the `address` parameter's required format (string pointer? symbol name? hex literal?), which is the sole required parameter.
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 ('Read ... program memory') plus the scope (up to 4096 bytes) and output format (hex and ASCII). It is clearly distinguishable in intent from sibling tools like decompile_function or disassemble_function, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings (disassemble_function, decompile_function_by_address), no stated prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only describes the mechanism, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.