list_databasesList all open binary analysis databases with metadata, including current opening and analyzing status, to track reverse-engineering sessions.
List all open databases with metadata (includes opening/analyzing status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that metadata includes opening/analyzing status. However, with no annotations like readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or that it has no side effects, though 'List' implies it. The added metadata detail is valuable but insufficient for full transparency.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes relevant detail about metadata without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what the tool does and the key additional detail about status. It does not mention any prerequisites or limitations beyond 'open' databases, which is inherent in the wording. For a list tool with an output schema, this is sufficient.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter semantics, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. No additional parameter guidance is necessary.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing all open databases with metadata, including opening/analyzing status. It distinguishes from siblings like list_targets (which lists targets) and open_database (which opens a database). The verb 'List' and resource 'all open databases' are specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it only covers open databases (which is implied) or that list_targets should be used for targets. No exclusions, conditions, or recommended contexts are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.