Extract printable ASCII and UTF-16LE character sequences from a file, including offsets and optional regex filtering, to locate evidence in forensic data.
Printable strings (ASCII and UTF-16LE) from a file with offsets, optionally filtered by regex.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| part | No | ||
| image | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| min_len | No | ||
| pattern | No | ||
| encoding | No | both | |
| local_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the output shape (strings with offsets) and supported encodings, but says nothing about permissions, whether the source file must be opened/attached first, result ordering, or truncation when limit (default 500) is hit.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and the two notable capabilities (offsets, regex filter) come first. It is arguably over-terse for an 8-parameter tool, but there is no wasted text.
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 an 8-parameter forensics tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too thin. Critically, it never explains how to designate the source (ref/part/image/local_path), which is the first thing an agent must get right to call this successfully.
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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps loosely to two of them ('filtered by regex' -> pattern, 'ASCII and UTF-16LE' -> encoding), but the six source- and sizing-related parameters (ref, part, image, local_path, limit, min_len) are unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific operation and resource: extract printable strings from a file, with offsets, covering ASCII and UTF-16LE. This is clear enough to act on, but it never names the closely related siblings (grep_file, grep_files) to distinguish this from regex search tools in the same family.
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 word 'optionally' implies a filtering mode but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as grep_file for pattern matching or read/extract for raw content. The agent must infer the tool's niche 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.