Detect commercial packers, anti-debugging APIs, anti-VM heuristics, and RDTSC timing traps in a binary to reveal protections before reverse engineering or symbolic execution.
Detects commercial packers (UPX, Themida, VMProtect, Enigma), Anti-Debugging APIs, Anti-VM heuristics, and RDTSC timing traps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binary_path | Yes | Absolute path to binary |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral. It does not say whether analysis is static or dynamic, whether the binary is executed (a major safety consideration for malware samples), whether the file is modified, or how long a scan takes. Only the detection categories are given.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and packs the detection categories into an efficient list with zero filler. There is no wasted text, though also no structural grouping beyond the comma list.
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 one required param and no output schema, an agent still needs to know what the scan reports (per-protection flags? confidence? addresses?) and whether it is static or dynamic, and neither is stated. The enumeration of targets covers the 'what,' but the operational picture is incomplete for a security-analysis tool.
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%: binary_path is documented as 'Absolute path to binary'. The description adds no further parameter meaning (e.g. whether packed/obfuscated inputs are accepted, whether a directory is allowed), so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Detects') plus an enumerated resource set: commercial packers (UPX, Themida, VMProtect, Enigma), anti-debug APIs, anti-VM heuristics, RDTSC traps. An agent can tell this is a passive protection-fingerprinting scan rather than an action tool like neutralize_anti_debugging or dynamically_unpack_binary. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling it is not, so 4 rather than 5.
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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus dynamically_unpack_binary, neutralize_anti_debugging, or scan_byte_entropy, and no preconditions (e.g. should this run before unpacking, or after?). Usage is only inferable from the list of detection targets, which is guidance by implication at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.