ghidraMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_disassembly_comment

Set or clear the end-of-line comment at a disassembly address, letting you annotate instructions and document reverse-engineering findings in Ghidra.

Instructions

Set the end-of-line comment at an address (shown in the disassembly). 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_disassembly_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 carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait — an empty comment clears the existing comment — which is beyond a bare restatement. But it omits permissions/auth needs, and doesn't clarify that this is a write to the disassembly view rather than the decompiler.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the clear-behavior secondary. No wasted words.

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 needn't be explained, and the tool is a simple 2-param mutation. Still, for an unannotated write tool it leaves the sibling distinction and address format unaddressed, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the comment parameter's clearing semantics well, but gives no information about the address parameter's expected format (raw address, symbol, hex). Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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) and resource (end-of-line comment at an address), and the parenthetical '(shown in the disassembly)' hints at the disassembly view. However, it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling set_decompiler_comment, so the agent must infer which view this targets.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives, despite set_decompiler_comment being a near-identical sibling. The only contextual hint is that an empty comment clears the comment, which is a behavior, not usage routing.

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