Locate all addresses in a binary that match a given hex byte pattern, with dot wildcards for flexible searching.
Search for a hex byte pattern across the binary and return all matching addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (0-based) | |
| pattern | Yes | Hex byte pattern to search for, dots (..) as wildcards | |
| 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 transparency burden and does state the core search-and-return behavior. However, saying 'return all matching addresses' overstates the default limit of 100 and the pagination-oriented offset/limit parameters. It also does not mention output format or what happens when no matches are found.
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 well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key operation, target, and output, making it immediately scannable for an agent.
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 straightforward search tool, the description plus the fully documented schema is enough for basic correct invocation. It is missing guidance on output formatting, pagination behavior, and the default limit, but the schema covers the parameters and the core return value is stated.
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 schema provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond restating that the pattern is hex and the target is a binary file; wildcard behavior and pagination semantics are already in the 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 the operation (search), the resource (binary), the criterion (hex byte pattern), and the result (matching addresses). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_string, read_bytes, and search_rop_gadgets without needing to inspect schemas.
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 by the hex-byte-pattern wording, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as search_string or search_rop_gadgets. No exclusions or routing guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.