Lists active Ghidra instances from UDS discovery and TCP fallback, showing project names, PIDs, open programs, socket paths or TCP URLs, and the currently connected instance.
List known Ghidra instances from UDS discovery and the active TCP fallback.
Returns JSON with each instance's project name, PID, open programs, and socket path or TCP URL. Also shows which instance is currently connected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v7.0.0Input schema / titlePrevious value: -"list_instancesArguments"New value: +"_list_instances_toolArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "list_instancesOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv5.15.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the two discovery mechanisms (UDS and TCP fallback) and that one instance is flagged as currently connected, which shapes how an agent interprets results.
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 tight sentences with zero waste: the first establishes what is listed and how it's discovered, the second front-loads the return shape. Every sentence earns 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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so concretely (project name, PID, open programs, socket path or TCP URL, connection status). Combined with annotation coverage of safety, it is complete enough for correct invocation; only the relationship to `connect_instance` is left implicit.
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?
Zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline applies. There is nothing parameter-wise the description needs to compensate for.
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 states a specific verb+resource ('List known Ghidra instances') and its discovery sources (UDS discovery plus active TCP fallback), and it notes that connect status is included. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling `connect_instance`, but the listing-vs-connecting distinction is reasonably evident from the text.
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 explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, though usage is strongly implied: an agent would call this to discover instances before `connect_instance`. No exclusions or conditions are spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.