Patch binary files by writing raw bytes to a specified byte offset, enabling precise hex edits for game modding and data correction.
Write raw bytes to a file at a specific offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | Yes | Byte offset to write at | |
| hex_data | Yes | Hex string to write (e.g. "90 90 90" or "909090") | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether existing bytes are overwritten, whether the file grows past EOF, what happens on a failed write, or what permissions/locking are required. For a mutation 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. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why behavioral and usage gaps remain.
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 mutating, destructive-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits overwrite semantics, boundary behavior, and failure modes. The schema covers parameters well, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this safely.
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 all three parameters are already documented with format examples. The description's phrase 'at a specific offset' and 'raw bytes' merely restates the schema, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond it. 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?
The description states a specific verb (write), resource (raw bytes to a file), and locus (specific offset), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like hex_replace, jar_hex_edit, or jar_hex_view, which an agent must distinguish by name alone.
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, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent gets no help deciding between this and hex_replace, which appear to overlap on the same file/byte surface.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.