Lists relocations in a binary with addresses, types, and target symbols. Use it to inspect dynamic linking metadata and resolve symbol references during binary analysis.
List all relocations in the binary with their addresses, types, and target symbols.
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully convey read behavior. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the phrase 'all relocations' conflicts with the schema's default limit of 100, and the description does not disclose pagination/truncation behavior or what happens on an invalid binary path.
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. It communicates the operation, resource, and primary returned data efficiently.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the return fields, but it omits important invocation context: the default limit means 'all' is not returned by default, and the relationship between pagination parameters and full enumeration is left to the schema. For a simple read-only list tool this is close to adequate but not fully complete.
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 the baseline applies; the schema already explains binary_path, limit, and offset. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but it does not need to given the complete schema.
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 ('List') and a specific resource ('relocations in the binary'), and specifies the returned fields: addresses, types, and target symbols. It is unambiguous and clearly separated from sibling listing tools by resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with list_imports/list_exports.
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 intended use is implied: call this when relocation information is needed for a binary. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing from the resource name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.