get_xrefs_toFind all cross-references to a specified address in a binary. Identify which functions or data reference a given location for reverse engineering analysis.
查看引用到指定地址的所有交叉引用（谁引用了它）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binary | Yes | ||
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'view' (查看), implying a read operation, but does not disclose required permissions, whether the binary must be preloaded/analyzed, address format expectations, return shape, or error behavior.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and parameter detail elsewhere.
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 two required undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It does not explain how 'binary' and 'address' should be supplied, nor what the tool returns or requires operationally.
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 should compensate for both required parameters. It mentions the target 'address' but adds no format or meaning details, and it does not explain the required 'binary' parameter at all.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: viewing cross-references that point to a given address, with the parenthetical '(who references it)' reinforcing direction. It implicitly contrasts with get_xrefs_from by specifying references *to* the address, but it does not name that sibling 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?
Usage is implied by the purpose: use this to find who references an address. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_xrefs_from, get_function_xrefs, or other xref-related siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.