Analyze a binary file to extract architecture, platform, entry point, and metadata as JSON. Set the analysis depth to control detail.
Open and analyze a binary file, returning architecture, platform, entry point, and binary metadata as JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binary_path | Yes | Absolute path to the binary file | |
| analysis_level | No | Analysis depth level (aa=basic, aaa=standard, aaaa=experimental) | aaa |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the tool opens and analyzes a file and returns JSON, which signals a read-oriented operation. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, whether a persistent session/project is created, or what happens if the path is invalid; this leaves some behavioral ambiguity.
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?
One focused sentence, front-loads the operation and states the return format. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Because there is no output schema and no annotations, and because the binary-analysis toolbox contains several overlapping tools, the description is not complete enough: it lacks selection guidance and explicit assurance about side effects/state changes. It does at least list the main returned fields, preventing the score from being 1.
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 schema already documents binary_path and analysis_level with enum semantics and a default. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 action (open and analyze), a resource (a binary file), and the outputs (architecture, platform, entry point, binary metadata) returned as JSON. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with overlapping siblings like triage_binary or file_format_analyzer, but the output scope makes the tool's purpose clear.
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 guidance is given on when to use analyze_binary versus triage_binary, file_format_analyzer, binary_headers, or analyze_types. The description only states the operation with no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving tool selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.