Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aegis-re

aegis-re

by cloudauraa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

aegis_inspect_binary

Inspects ELF, PE, DLL, and .so binaries to identify architecture, bitness, hardening mitigations, entropy, and high-risk API imports for security triage.

Instructions

Inspects binary format, architecture, bitness, mitigations (NX, PIE, Canary), entropy, and high-risk API imports.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "aegis_inspect_binary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesAbsolute or relative path to the binary (ELF, PE, DLL, or .so)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does useful work by naming the concrete artifacts it reports (mitigations, imports), implicitly framing this as a static read-only analysis, but it never states that the file is not modified, whether the file must exist and be a valid binary, or how expensive/fast the inspection is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, with every listed item being concrete and non-redundant. No filler or hedging.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-argument read-only inspection tool this is close to sufficient, and no output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. The missing piece is sibling disambiguation against aegis_calculate_entropy, which the description itself invites confusion with by listing entropy as one of its outputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter and its schema description is fully populated (100% coverage), including the accepted formats (ELF, PE, DLL, .so). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level; with a single well-documented parameter, a 4 is warranted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb ("Inspects") with a clear resource (binary) and enumerates the exact attributes surfaced: format, architecture, bitness, NX/PIE/Canary mitigations, entropy, and risky API imports. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling aegis_calculate_entropy, which covers overlapping ground (entropy), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what to choose instead. The overlap with aegis_calculate_entropy and aegis_triage_vulnerabilities (both plausibly applied to the same binary) is left entirely unresolved, so routing is guesswork.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools