List all entry points of a binary, including program entry and TLS callbacks, with virtual and physical addresses and entry types.
List all entry points of the binary (program entry, TLS callbacks, etc.) using Rizin iej. Returns virtual address, physical address, and entry type.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the operation is a listing via a read-only Rizin command and specifies the returned fields (virtual address, physical address, entry type). It does not exhaustively describe error behavior or unsupported formats, but 'list' and 'iej' sufficiently convey this is a non-mutating analysis.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the action and scope are front-loaded and the return values are stated in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter listing tool this is nearly complete: the schema covers the argument, and the description covers the resource and return fields despite no output schema. It could be slightly more explicit about supported binary formats or failure cases, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter binary_path is already described as the absolute path to the binary file. The description adds no new parameter detail beyond that, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 and object ('List all entry points of the binary'), gives concrete examples (program entry, TLS callbacks), and names the underlying Rizin command (iej). This clearly differentiates it from sibling listing tools like 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?
It establishes a clear usage context: whenever the agent needs the binary's entry points and their addresses/types. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no sibling tool provides this specific resource, so the omission is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.