Maps Delphi published-method names to code RVAs from a process dump, enabling reverse engineers to locate RTTI methods in protected binaries.
Map Delphi published-method names to code RVAs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | No | ||
| dump_path | Yes | ||
| names_file | No | ||
| max_occurrences | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never says whether this is a read-only analysis, what happens when a name is not found, how max_occurrences affects results, or what the output looks like—only the bare transform is stated.
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 that states the core mapping with zero padding. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification more than disciplined editing.
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 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leaves too much unstated—especially the distinction between the names and names_file inputs. Not enough for an agent to call it confidently.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains the required dump_path, the names-vs-names_file alternatives, or what max_occurrences (default 4) controls.
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 (Map) and resource (Delphi published-method names to code RVAs), which is concrete and actionable. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling delphi_units, so an agent must infer the split from names alone.
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 related delphi_units tool. The agent gets no signal about when this mapping is the right call versus other Delphi/disassembly tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.