Skip to main content
Glama

disassemble_function

Read-only

Disassemble an entire .NET function into labeled CIL blocks with named call targets to inspect exact instructions when decompiled C is insufficient.

Instructions

Disassemble a whole function by blocks, with L_<addr>: labels and named call targets, CIL for .NET. Use it when exact instructions matter; for C use decompile, for a few instructions disassemble.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "disassemble_function"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bytesNoAdd the raw-bytes column (default false).
addressYesEntry, any address inside it, or a name.
max_instrsNoMaximum instructions to return (default 400, max 2000).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds valuable context about output shape (block-split, label format, symbolised call targets, .NET CIL). It does not mention truncation behavior when max_instrs is hit or how large functions are chunked, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output traits, followed by routing guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description does carry return-shape information (block structure, labels, named targets). It is nearly complete, though truncation/limits for large functions are left to the max_instrs schema entry alone.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in-schema; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Disassemble a whole function by blocks') and immediately characterizes the output format (L_<addr>: labels, named call targets, CIL for .NET). This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling 'disassemble' (few instructions) and 'decompile' (C).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use it ('when exact instructions matter') and names both alternatives with their selecting conditions ('for C use decompile, for a few instructions disassemble'). An agent can route without opening any other schema.

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