Scan an N64 ROM to locate executable MIPS code regions by detecting prologue patterns, helping reverse engineers identify valid functions before disassembly or analysis.
Scan an N64 ROM for executable MIPS code regions using prologue patterns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to ROM file | |
| maxBytes | No | Max bytes to scan (default 4MB) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real signal by revealing a heuristic detection strategy (prologue patterns), which warns the agent that results may include false positives or miss leaf functions. It says nothing about read-only behavior, cost of scanning, or output volume, which matters for a default 4MB scan.
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?
One sentence with zero filler and the key scope (N64 ROM, MIPS, code regions) front-loaded. However, it is terse for a heuristic scanner whose output shape is unstated; a short clause on what a 'region' means would earn its place.
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?
A two-parameter scan tool with no output schema does not need much, and the schema carries the parameters. But the agent is left unsure what a returned 'region' looks like (address ranges, confidence, counts) or whether the scan is read-only, which is a meaningful gap for a tool this central to the ROM pipeline.
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%: path and maxBytes are both documented in the schema, including the 4MB default. The description adds no meaning beyond that, such as what maxBytes means when a ROM is larger or which region layout to expect, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: scan an N64 ROM for executable MIPS code regions. It also names the detection method (prologue patterns), which separates it from siblings such as mips_disassemble or rom_inspect. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so a 4 rather than 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?
Use is only implied: an agent can infer it runs early in a ROM analysis pipeline, before disassembly. There is no explicit statement of when to use this rather than rom_inspect, analyze_n64_rom, or a section-based ELF listing, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.