Read or write emulated Dolphin memory addresses, returning both base64 and hexadecimal data for inspection, debugging, and modification.
Read or write emulated memory. Reads return both base64 and hexadecimal data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| encoding | No | hex | |
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| allowPartial | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that reads return base64 and hex data, but doesn't describe write behavior, permissions, error conditions, timeouts, or partial read handling. With 8 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 short sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the return format detail follows efficiently.
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?
With 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It should explain parameter usage, memory model, write semantics, and error behavior. The single sentence about return format is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.
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%, and the description only mentions that reads return base64 and hex, which is not parameter-specific. Critical parameters like action, address, count, offset, encoding, timeoutMs, and allowPartial are entirely undocumented in the description. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.
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 clear verb and resource: read or write emulated memory. This is specific but does not differentiate from siblings like dolphin_scan or dolphin_variables, which could also involve memory access. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is absent.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dolphin_scan, dolphin_variables, or dolphin_watch. The agent must infer from the name alone. No exclusions or contexts provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.