Retrieve all linked libraries (DLLs/shared objects) from a binary as a clean JSON array of library names, revealing its dependencies.
List all linked libraries (DLLs/shared objects) from the binary using Rizin ilj. Returns a clean JSON array of library names.
| 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 disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and states the return shape ('clean JSON array of library names'), which covers basic behavior. However, it does not disclose edge cases such as invalid or missing binary paths, empty library lists, or whether prior analysis is required.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and object, and the second sentence provides the return format, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the core action, the parameter usage implied by the schema, and the return format. It could be more complete about when to choose rz_libs over sibling tools, but the low complexity limits the impact of that gap.
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 only parameter, binary_path, has 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute path to the binary file'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating that libraries come from the binary.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all linked libraries (DLLs/shared objects)'), which is semantically distinct from sibling tools like list_imports, list_exports, and list_sections. It also clarifies the return format, making the tool's intent unambiguous.
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 guidance is given for when to use rz_libs instead of related listing tools such as list_imports or list_exports. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.