Identify which N64 or PS2 memory region a virtual address belongs to—RDRAM, KSEG, Main RAM, GS registers, or VRAM—to support reverse engineering and crash analysis.
Inspect a virtual memory address: checks which region it belongs to (RDRAM, KSEG, Main RAM, GS registers, VRAM) on N64 or PS2.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arch | Yes | Console architecture | |
| address | Yes | Virtual address to check (e.g. 0x80000400 or 0x00100000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the substantive behavior (enumerating the regions it checks and the two architectures), which implies a read-only lookup, but it omits what happens for an unmapped or out-of-range address, whether it errors or returns 'unknown', and what the result looks like.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and immediately clarifies the concrete output categories. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read-only lookup this covers the essentials, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should still say what the return value contains (region name, offset, permissions) and how unmapped addresses are reported. Those gaps are meaningful for an agent trying to interpret results.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including an enum for arch and an example address format. The description only restates the N64/PS2 choice already encoded by the enum and adds no extra meaning about address encoding (physical vs virtual, hex width), so it sits at the baseline.
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 specific verb (inspect/check) and resource (virtual memory address) and enumerates the resolution targets (RDRAM, KSEG, Main RAM, GS registers, VRAM) plus the two supported architectures. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like memory_check_alignment or memory_analyze_overlap, 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it has a raw address and needs to know which memory region it falls in. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the related alignment/overlap siblings, and no stated prerequisites such as whether the ROM/arch context must be loaded first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.