Analyze Portable Executable files to reveal headers, sections, data directories, and whether they are managed .NET or native. Use for inspecting .exe or .dll binaries.
Full PE (Portable Executable) analysis. Shows headers, sections, data directories, and whether it is managed (.NET) or native.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Path to PE file (.exe or .dll) |
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 behavioral burden. It states what the analysis shows, implying a read-only inspection, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, required permissions, or failure modes. It adds output-category context but leaves the safety profile unstated.
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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the output summary. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes directly to understanding what the tool does.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable high-level preview of returned information (headers, sections, directories, managed/native). It does not cover error cases or return format, but the core analysis scope is adequately communicated.
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% and the single file_path parameter is fully described in the schema as 'Path to PE file (.exe or .dll)'. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, such as format constraints or path resolution. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('analysis') and resource ('PE (Portable Executable)'), and enumerates what it reveals: headers, sections, data directories, managed/native. This distinguishes it from generic format analysis, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools such as analyze_dll_structure or analyze_file_format.
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 comparison to alternatives like analyze_file_format or analyze_dll_structure. The name implies PE-specific analysis, but the description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.