Retrieve all sections and segments from a binary, including addresses, sizes, and permissions. Use this to map memory layout and analyze binary structure.
List all sections and segments in the binary with addresses, sizes, and permissions.
| 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 burden. It discloses that this is a read-only listing operation and hints at return content, but it does not address pagination behavior, ordering, address formatting, or the apparent tension between 'all' and the limit/offset parameters. The core behavior is clear, but edge behavior is not.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the resource, operation, and key output attributes 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?
For a simple listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it names the target and the returned attributes. However, it omits important context like pagination semantics, whether all results require multiple calls, and what happens with invalid or unanalyzable binaries, so it is 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 schema already fully explains binary_path, limit, and offset. The description does not add input parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it mostly describes output fields, which is not a parameter concern.
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 (list) and a concrete resource (sections and segments in the binary), and it names the output fields (addresses, sizes, permissions). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_imports, list_strings, and 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 use case is implied by the resource named in the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling listing tools or when not to use it. An agent can infer it is the tool for section/segment metadata, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.