Read raw bytes from a file at a specified offset to inspect binary data. Enables game modders to examine executable code, assets, and other binary files.
Read raw bytes from a file at a specific offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| length | No | Number of bytes to read (default 256) | |
| offset | Yes | Byte offset to start reading | |
| 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 implies a read-only operation but never states safety, whether offsets beyond EOF error or truncate, how much is returned when fewer than 'length' bytes remain, or the return encoding (hex string vs raw bytes). For a binary-reading tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation and its two key inputs are stated immediately. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 simple 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials of the operation are conveyed. However, the return representation (hex dump, raw bytes, base64) and out-of-range behavior are unstated, and with no output schema to fall back on the agent must guess what comes back.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents file_path, offset, and the length default of 256. The description only restates 'offset' and adds nothing about units, bounds, or the default length, so 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?
States a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('raw bytes from a file'), and scope ('at a specific offset'), so the agent knows it is a byte-level read primitive. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like hex_write, hex_replace, or jar_hex_view, but the read/offset framing is distinctive enough.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With hex_search, hex_write, hex_replace, and jar_hex_view all present, the agent gets no help choosing between them; it must infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.