Write hex-encoded bytes to a specified address in a live debug session, enabling runtime memory patching and data modification for reverse engineering.
Write bytes (hex string) into target memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| data_hex | 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 are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It implies memory mutation but never states that this alters live process state, requires a valid session, may corrupt or crash the target, or whether the write is reversible.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly achieved by omitting information the agent actually needs.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the definition is too thin for a state-mutating debug tool. An agent cannot determine the required session lifecycle, address conventions, or failure/corruption behavior.
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 all three parameters are undocumented in structured fields. The description only clarifies the data_hex format ('hex string'); address format (absolute/relative, base) and session_id provenance remain unexplained.
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 (write) and resource (target memory) and clarifies the data format as a hex string, which cleanly separates it from the sibling debug_read_memory. It does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling, so it falls short of the top score.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the active debug session required to make a write meaningful. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.