Analyze MIPS function machine code to detect stack frame size, saved registers, calls, jumps, basic blocks, and pseudocode for reverse engineering.
Analyze a MIPS function: detects stack frame size, saved registers (ra, s0-s7, fp), calls, jumps, basic blocks and pseudocode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | Yes | Hex string of function machine code | |
| arch | No | Architecture | |
| address | No | Base virtual address |
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 helpfully discloses what the analysis yields (stack frame, saved registers, calls, jumps, basic blocks, pseudocode), but says nothing about whether the operation is pure/read-only on the hex string, what the output format is, or how malformed input is handled.
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 with a compact detection list and no filler. It is efficient, though the flat enumeration could be sequenced to lead with the most decision-relevant outputs.
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 output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it only partially does so by naming the detected artifacts without stating format (structured object vs. text pseudocode) or any failure behavior. Adequate for a pure analysis tool over a hex blob, but there are clear gaps.
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 100%, with hex, arch, and address all documented and arch constrained by an enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about parameter interaction, such as whether address affects jump/call resolution or whether arch changes register conventions.
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 (analyze) and resource (a MIPS function) and enumerates concrete outputs: stack frame size, saved registers, calls, jumps, basic blocks, pseudocode. That enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like mips_disassemble and mips_reconstruct_function, though the description never explicitly names the boundary between them.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the output list whether to pick this over mips_disassemble, decompile_function, or compare_functions, with no explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.