Detect a file's true format from magic bytes to identify game executables and archives like PE, ELF, Mach-O, ZIP, or Java class for modding.
Detect file format from magic bytes. Works with PE, ELF, Mach-O, ZIP, Java class, and other formats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Path to the file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the detection mechanism (magic bytes) and supported formats, which is meaningful context, but says nothing about the return shape, whether it reads only a header, or how it handles unknown formats.
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, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded before the format enumeration. Nothing redundant.
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 single-parameter, non-mutating detection tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it detects, how, and which formats. Its only gap is the absence of any output-format or fallback behavior hint, which is minor.
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?
Only one parameter (file_path) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, path-format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.
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+resource ('Detect file format') and the mechanism ('from magic bytes'), plus the covered formats (PE, ELF, Mach-O, ZIP, Java class). It is clearly distinct from deeper analysis siblings like analyze_pe_full, though it doesn't name them explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The format list hints at applicability but the agent gets no instruction on when to reach for this versus analyze_pe_full, detect_engine, or calculate_checksums.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.