Find all imported functions and symbols in a binary, including their memory addresses and source libraries. Provide the absolute binary path to list imports, with optional pagination for large results.
List all imported functions and symbols with their addresses and library origins.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (0-based) | |
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. The verb 'List' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation and the output content is disclosed, but the description does not address prerequisites (e.g., whether the binary must first be loaded or analyzed given siblings like analyze_binary) or empty-result behavior.
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 13-word sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource, and key output detail are all front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning and 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 simple 3-parameter listing tool, the description plus schema adequately covers inputs and stated outputs. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of preconditions or when to prefer this over sibling listing tools, an agent is left to infer those details.
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 (binary_path, limit, offset) are already documented with types, defaults, and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and names a precise resource ('imported functions and symbols') along with the key output fields ('addresses and library origins'). This inherently distinguishes it from siblings like list_exports, list_functions, and list_variables, so an agent can select the correct tool without inspecting the schema.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided; the description never mentions list_exports, list_functions, or the dependency-analysis context where import inspection matters. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.