ghidraMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rename_function_by_address

Rename a function by its address to clarify reverse-engineered code. Provide the function address and new name to update symbols during Ghidra analysis.

Instructions

Rename the function at or containing an address.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "function_address": "<function_address>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_function_by_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`new_name`	Yes
`function_address`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutating tool. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that addresses pointing inside a function body resolve to the containing function — but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or naming constraints. Output schema covers return values, so that gap is excused.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why parameter and usage gaps exist.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the core action and the address-resolution nuance are covered. It falls short on address/new-name format expectations and on routing between this and rename_function.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions either parameter by name. It implies function_address is a function address but gives no format (hex string?), and new_name is entirely unexplained, including whether it must be a valid identifier.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (rename) and resource (the function at or containing an address). The phrase 'at or containing an address' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling rename_function, which operates by name, though the distinction is not called out explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus rename_function, nor any prerequisites. The only selection cue is the implied 'you have an address, not a name' framing, which the agent must infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.