ih8sn1ff

by ih8w1nd

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

ghidra_decompile

Decompile functions by RVA list or string keywords to reverse-engineer protected binaries via the ih8sn1ff MCP server.

Instructions

Decompile functions by RVA list and/or by string keywords.

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": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "ghidra_decompile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rvas`	No
`limit`	No
`program`	No
`project`	Yes
`keywords`	No
`timeout_min`	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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it says nothing about permissions, side effects, performance/timeout behavior, or what happens when both rvas and keywords are supplied. 'Decompile' implies a read-only operation, but that is the only inference available.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of fluff, but its extreme brevity leaves the tool under-specified for a six-parameter operation. It earns its place but barely.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters at 0% description coverage, the one-sentence description is not complete enough. It does not explain the required project parameter, program selection, limits, timeouts, or the interaction between rvas and keywords.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for six undocumented parameters. It mentions only rvas and keywords, omitting the required project parameter, program, limit, and timeout_min, and provides no syntax or format details.

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 (Decompile) and resource (functions), plus selection criteria by RVA list or string keywords, which distinguishes it somewhat from sibling listing tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from disasm or ghidra_funcs, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like disasm or ghidra_funcs. The description only implies usage from the selection modes, leaving the agent to infer context.

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