Convert a file offset to a Relative Virtual Address in a PE file, enabling accurate binary patching and memory mapping during game modding.
Convert a file offset to a Relative Virtual Address (RVA) in a PE file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | Yes | File offset to convert | |
| file_path | Yes | Path to PE 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 behavioral burden. It says nothing about failure modes (e.g., offset not covered by any section), whether the result is null/error for unmapped offsets, or whether multiple RVAs can map to one offset — all relevant for a PE mapping conversion.
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 verb and both resources appear immediately. Nothing to trim.
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 two-parameter conversion with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool. It is incomplete regarding the inverse sibling, offset format expectations, and error behavior for unmapped offsets.
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 both parameters are documented there (offset = file offset, file_path = PE file path). The description adds no format or unit detail (hex vs decimal offset, expected file type validation) beyond the schema, so the 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 names a specific verb (convert) and both resources (file offset, RVA) and scopes it to PE files, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not acknowledge the inverse sibling rva_to_offset, so an agent gets no help distinguishing the two directions beyond reading the name.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus the inverse rva_to_offset tool, nor any prerequisite or context (e.g., which analysis task needs an RVA). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.