Converts an authorized assembly file into candidate C code and raw diagnostics using m2c, so you can inspect possible decompilation results without treating them as recovered source.
Run m2c over an authorized assembly file and return candidate C plus raw diagnostics. Candidate code is never treated as recovered source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| assemblyPath | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ('candidate C plus raw diagnostics') and a key caveat that candidate output must not be treated as recovered source, which is genuinely valuable context. It omits other behavioral facts an agent needs with zero annotation coverage: whether files are written, whether an external m2c binary must be installed, failure/timeout behavior, and permissions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by the critical caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description should do more. It covers the output nature and the interpretive caveat well, but leaves the address and cwd parameters and the external tool dependency completely unexplained, which is a material gap for a decompilation tool.
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 mentions no parameters by name. Only 'assembly file' loosely maps to assemblyPath; the address and cwd parameters are entirely undefined in both the schema and the description, so the agent must guess their format and role.
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?
The description names a specific verb and engine ('Run m2c over an assembly file') and states the output ('candidate C plus raw diagnostics'), which distinguishes it from disassembly siblings like mips_disassemble. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest siblings (mips_reconstruct_function, mips_analyze_function), so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The phrase 'authorized assembly file' implies a prerequisite (only run on files you are permitted to analyze) and the m2c reference implies when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternative tools such as mips_disassemble or mips_reconstruct_function, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.