Detect cryptographic constants (AES S-boxes, CRC tables, RSA constants, SHA magic numbers) in a binary. Identify embedded crypto primitives to support reverse engineering and vulnerability analysis.
Detect cryptographic constants (AES S-boxes, CRC tables, RSA constants, SHA magic numbers) in the binary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binary_path | Yes | Absolute path to the binary file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'detect' implies a non-mutating scan, but the description does not disclose output format, whether detection is heuristic, possible false positives, or limitations with packed or obfuscated binaries. It provides basic transparency but not rich detail.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence with the action front-loaded and concrete examples following. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
The invocation context is clear for a single-parameter tool, and sibling names do not create ambiguity about the core purpose. However, with no output schema and no mention of return value structure, scan scope, or result presentation, the description is not fully complete for an agent trying to use the tool end-to-end.
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?
The only parameter, binary_path, is fully described in the schema with its type and meaning ('Absolute path to the binary file'), resulting in 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Detect') and a specific target ('cryptographic constants'), reinforced with concrete examples like AES S-boxes, CRC tables, RSA constants, and SHA magic numbers. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling analysis and search tools.
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 implies this tool should be used when looking for cryptographic constants in a binary, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives such as search_bytes or list_strings. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving some selection burden on the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.