ih8sn1ff

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

disasm

Generate Capstone x86/x64 assembly listings at a specified address. Set the base to file or RVA to inspect code in protected binaries.

Instructions

Capstone x86/x64 listing at addr (hex string). base: file or rva.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "addr": "<addr>"
    },
    "name": "disasm"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`addr`	Yes
`base`	No	file
`path`	Yes
`span`	No
`count`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying engine (Capstone) and the arch (x86/x64), but says nothing about whether this is a pure read, how output is bounded by span/count, truncation behavior, or permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely terse and front-loaded, with no wasted tokens, but it is under-specified rather than concise; a two-clause fragment is too thin to carry a 5-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to stand alone. It omits the return format (assembly text?) and the meaning of span/count defaults, leaving the agent insufficiently informed for a 5-param disassembler.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 5 undocumented parameters. It clarifies addr (hex string) and base (file vs rva), but path, span, and count — the two that control output size — are left entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: produce a Capstone x86/x64 disassembly listing at a given address. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like ghidra_decompile or emulate, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only guidance is the fragment 'base: file or rva', which is really parameter semantics. There is no statement of when to choose disasm over ghidra_decompile, emulate, or debug_read_memory, and no prerequisites or conditions given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.