Trace whole-program call graph edges, indirect calls, resolved IAT/PLT stubs, and string cross-references to map binary execution flow and data usage.
Traces whole-program call graph edges, indirect calls, resolved IAT/PLT stubs, and literal string cross-references (XREFs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binary_path | Yes | Absolute path to target binary (PE, ELF) |
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 burden. It does convey meaningful behavioral scope — whole-program (not per-function) coverage, static resolution of IAT/PLT stubs and string literals — which tells the agent this is a static read-only analysis. However, it says nothing about cost/runtime on large binaries, whether it requires a pre-unpacked or deobfuscated input, or how results are structured.
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?
One sentence, zero filler, and the scope qualifier ('whole-program') is front-loaded immediately after the verb. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 one-parameter tool this is close to sufficient, and the enumerated XREF categories describe what is computed. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what the agent receives back (graph, edge list, per-reference records) and any input preconditions, which it omits.
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% and the single parameter (binary_path) is described in the schema as an absolute path to a PE/ELF. The description adds no further constraint or format detail, which is acceptable at this coverage level but is pure baseline.
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 concrete verb ('Traces') and enumerates the exact artifacts produced: whole-program call graph edges, indirect calls, resolved IAT/PLT stubs, and string XREFs. This is far more specific than a generic 'analyze binary' claim and implicitly separates it from decompile_* and trace_symbolic_taint, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to reach for this versus trace_symbolic_taint, decompile_entire_program, or inspect_binary_layout. The only hint is 'whole-program', which implies a broad static sweep, but the agent must infer that on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.