Extract PE resources from a binary: icons, manifests, version info, and embedded data, enabling quick inspection of embedded artifacts.
List PE resources (icons, manifests, version info, embedded data) from the binary.
| 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 behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the resource-category examples give some insight, but the description does not disclose behavior on non-PE binaries, error cases, or result shape. It does not contradict any annotations because none exist.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word adds value, and there is no repetition of schema information.
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 and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect in the returned list. It clearly identifies the resource categories but does not describe the structure of returned items or error behavior. This is acceptable for a simple listing tool 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?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, including binary_path meaning and limit/offset pagination defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the PE-resource context, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('PE resources') with helpful examples (icons, manifests, version info, embedded data). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools such as list_imports, list_exports, and list_sections.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The only contextual hint is 'PE resources,' which implies a Windows PE focus but does not help an agent decide among the many listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.