Patch game binaries by writing raw bytes at a specific offset in a file, enabling precise hex edits for modding.
Write raw bytes at a specific offset in a file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | Yes | Byte offset | |
| hex_data | Yes | Hex string to write | |
| class_path | Yes | Path to file | |
| session_id | Yes | Session ID |
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 does not state that this is a destructive/irreversible in-place mutation, whether a prior jar_open session is required, whether the file must subsequently be repacked, or how bounds/offset errors behave. 'Write raw bytes' alone is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 efficient sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably over-compressed for the surrounding complexity, but nothing is 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 4-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves major gaps: session lifecycle, relationship to jar_open/repack, and the exact semantics of offset bounds. The one-sentence description is far too thin for this tool's complexity.
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% and the description adds nothing beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies. One gap remains: the schema labels session_id only as 'Session ID' without explaining that it ties to an opened jar, and the description does not compensate.
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 verb+resource is clear ('write raw bytes at offset in a file'), but the description is silent about the JAR/class-file context implied by the jar_ prefix and the class_path/session_id parameters. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings hex_write, hex_replace, or jar_edit_file, which an agent must disambiguate among.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. With several overlapping write-style siblings (hex_write, hex_replace, jar_edit_file), the agent gets no signal for choosing jar_hex_edit specifically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.