ghidraMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_decompiler_comment

Set or clear a decompiler pre-comment at a specific address; an empty comment removes it, helping annotate reverse-engineered code.

Instructions

Set the pre-comment at an address (shown in the decompiler). An empty comment clears it.

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "comment": "<comment>"
    },
    "name": "set_decompiler_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes
`comment`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: an empty string clears the comment. However, it says nothing about persistence, whether it requires a loaded program or valid address, or what the mutation affects on re-decompile, leaving a real gap for a write tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and location, followed by the clearing behavior. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, which lightens the burden. Still, for an unannotated mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage, the description omits address format, error behavior, and the sibling relationship, leaving it adequate but incomplete.

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

Parameters3/5

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 for both parameters. It usefully clarifies that the second parameter is the comment text and that an empty value clears the comment, but gives no hint on address format or syntax, which the schema also omits.

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 (set) plus resource (pre-comment) and location (at an address), and 'shown in the decompiler' distinguishes it in kind from a disassembly-level comment. It does not name its closest sibling set_disassembly_comment, so sibling disambiguation relies on the parenthetical.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance and never references the obvious alternative set_disassembly_comment, so an agent has to infer which comment layer to target. Only implicit context ('shown in the decompiler') hints at the intended use case.

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