Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Forensics Utils MCP Server

Forensics Utils MCP Server

by jus1-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

extract_strings_tool

Extract readable strings from binary files to uncover hidden URLs, file paths, and error messages during malware analysis.

Instructions

Extract readable strings from a binary file.

Useful for analyzing malware, finding embedded URLs, file paths, error messages, and other interesting artifacts.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "extract_strings_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesPath to the file
min_lengthNoMinimum string length to include (default: 4)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Extract') but does not disclose details such as encoding support, performance on large files, or the specific output structure. The behavior is not misleading, but additional context would improve transparency.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by relevant use cases. No filler or redundant information.

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?

For a simple extraction tool with an output schema available, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what it does and when it is useful, though it omits minor behavior details like encoding or file size limits.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions (file_path, min_length). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Extract readable strings') and a clear resource ('from a binary file'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as binwalk_scan or extract_exif, which perform different analysis tasks.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides context on when to use the tool: 'analyzing malware, finding embedded URLs, file paths, error messages'. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other analysis needs.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools