Read hex memory from a target process at an absolute address to inspect runtime data during debugging or reverse engineering.
Read target memory (hex) at an absolute address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output format ("hex") and that the address is absolute, which is useful. However it omits whether a live session is required, what happens on invalid addresses, and what the return structure looks like – significant gaps for a debug tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 resource. No wasted words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It should explain the session requirement, the role of size, and expected return behavior to let an agent call it correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that "address" is an absolute address, but says nothing about session_id or the size parameter (default 64), leaving two of three parameters undocumented.
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 ("Read") and resource ("target memory") with a format qualifier ("hex") and scope ("at an absolute address"). This distinguishes it from sibling debug_write_memory, though it stops short of naming siblings 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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug_dump or debug_state, and no prerequisites such as requiring an active debug session. Usage is only weakly implied by the debug_ prefix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.