bitslicer-mcp

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: attach/list processes, read/dump memory, scan/filter, edit session phases, and utility functions. The only close pair is read_memory vs dump_memory, but descriptions clearly distinguish by size and encoding.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_memory_regions, apply_memory_patch, resolve_pointer_chain). Standalone verbs like ping, attach, and disassemble are also in snake_case and fit the convention.
Tool Count4/5
16 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped server, but every tool serves a distinct function in the memory editing workflow. The count feels justified by the domain's complexity.
Completeness4/5
Covers process attachment, memory enumeration/reading, scanning/filtering, pointer resolution, disassembly, and a safe patch workflow with preview/apply/undo. Missing an explicit detach tool, and writes are restricted to previewed patches, but the core lifecycle is well covered.
Average 3.7/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 8 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'without writing', but the annotation declares destructiveHint=true, which is a direct contradiction. Additionally, it doesn't disclose what happens on a mismatch (e.g., whether it returns an error) or what the preview output contains.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, and the key constraint 'at most 64 bytes' is included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and low parameter documentation. The description does not explain how to obtain an edit session, what the preview returns, or how the tool fits into the broader workflow. It is insufficient for safe or correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'address' is described), and the description adds little meaning. It mentions 'expected bytes' but doesn't explicitly link to expectedHex, and it doesn't explain editSessionId or replacementHex. With such low coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compares expected bytes and previews a patch without writing, using specific verbs ('compare', 'preview') and a resource ('patch'). The phrase 'without writing' implicitly distinguishes it from apply_memory_patch, though it doesn't explicitly name that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, no mention of prerequisites such as an active edit session, and no explanation of how it relates to apply_memory_patch or undo_last_patch. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already indicate a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds the 'bounded instruction range' detail, which is useful context, but it does not describe output format, error behavior, or limitations beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence, which is appropriately short and front-loaded. However, the term 'bridge disassembly abstraction' is jargon and does not add meaningful clarity, so it is not perfect.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the disassembly result looks like, but it does not. It also omits important context such as the fixed architecture (arm64) and the maximum instruction count, which are only present in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'address' has a description), and the tool description does not compensate. The phrase 'bounded instruction range' hints at instructionCount, but it does not explain how parameters interact or what 'address' and 'instructionCount' mean in practice.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Decode') and a resource ('a bounded instruction range'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_memory and dump_memory. The phrase 'through the bridge disassembly abstraction' is somewhat vague, but the overall purpose is still clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_memory or dump_memory. It does not mention prerequisites, such as attaching to a process, or scenarios where disassembly is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a low burden for safety disclosure. It adds the context of 'approved target' and the 65536-byte limit, but does not explain what happens if the target is not approved or whether there are prerequisites (e.g., attach). This is some extra context but not rich behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is a single clear sentence of nine words, with no wasted or redundant content. It is appropriately front-loaded and easily parsed, making it concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description leaves out critical context: what qualifies as an 'approved target', whether prior steps like attach or list_memory_regions are required, and what the return value looks like (since no output schema exists). Given the sibling tools, it is unclear how this differs from dump_memory, so the description is not complete enough for an agent to select and invoke confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with only the address parameter described in the schema. The description mentions the 65536-byte limit, which duplicates the length parameter's maximum constraint, but does not add meaningful detail about the address or length semantics beyond what the schema provides. It does not compensate for the missing length description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (read) and the resource (target, implying memory given the tool name), along with the size limit of 65536 bytes. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like dump_memory or disassemble, so it lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'approved target' but does not explain when approval is needed or when dump_memory or other read-related tools would be more appropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that the native bridge must independently approve the target before access, which conveys the tool's non-guaranteed, approval-dependent nature. This is useful context not captured by the readOnlyHint or destructiveHint flags. It does not contradict the annotations, and adds meaningful behavioral detail.
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?
The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every word adds value, and the key information (request, approval) is immediately present. It is an excellent example of conciseness without under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (two params, simple action) and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and approval requirement. However, it lacks context on what happens after successful approval, how to interpret results, and when exactly to issue this request in a broader workflow. These gaps are notable but not severe.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter names 'pid' and 'authorizationReason' are self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning for these fields. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by clarifying the parameters' roles, which it fails to do. An agent must infer the semantics solely from the names and constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Request' and the resource 'attachment', making it clear the tool initiates an attach operation. The scope is slightly vague (what target?) but the schema's 'pid' property clarifies that it attaches to a process. It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on memory operations or edits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The phrase 'before access' implies it is a prerequisite for other operations, but it does not name specific sibling tools or describe the workflow. There are no exclusions or comparison with other attach-like tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which already inform the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as return format or how predicates are applied. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enhance transparency meaningfully.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the predicate types concisely. It is free of filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only filter tool with annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks context about the expected pairing of 'value' with the 'exact' predicate, what the output shape is (no output schema), and the relation to scan_value. The description is thin but conveys the core function without major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 by explaining the parameters. It only repeats the predicate enum values from the schema, offering no new meaning. The parameters scanId, value, and maxResults are not described at all. The description adds marginal value for predicates but leaves most parameters unexplained.
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?
The description clearly states the action (filter) and the target (a prior scan), and enumerates the supported predicate types (exact, changed, unchanged, increased, decreased). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_value, which creates scans, and read_memory, which reads memory. The verb and resource 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'prior scan' implies that the tool should be used after a scan is created, and the sibling tool scan_value is the likely precursor. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description carries less burden. It adds the mechanism of using recorded compare-before-write metadata, but does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., no patches to undo) or require an active edit session. This is a minimal value-add beyond annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb 'Undo' and provides the essential action and context. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with one parameter, the description is minimal but not complete. It lacks an explanation of the parameter, does not mention prerequisites like an active edit session, and does not describe return values or errors. The sibling context helps, but the description alone is barely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (editSessionId) with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'edit session' but does not explicitly explain that editSessionId is the identifier for the session or how to obtain it. This leaves the parameter semantics unclear.
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?
The description clearly states the action (Undo), the target (latest patch), and the context (edit session). It also mentions the mechanism (compare-before-write metadata), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool apply_memory_patch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage in the context of an edit session but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions like 'after an unintended patch application' or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true; description adds 'short-lived' and authorization requirements as useful context. However, it does not explain session expiration behavior or the need to end the session, and it doesn't mention potential side effects of opening a write session.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by prerequisites. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not mention what the session returns (e.g., session ID) or how the session is used with sibling tools. It also lacks parameter semantics, making the description incomplete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description makes no mention of the required 'justification' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the purpose or content of the justification, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
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?
Specific verb 'Begin' with resource 'short-lived write session' clearly states the tool's function. It also distinguishes from siblings like end_edit_session and apply_memory_patch by establishing this as the session initiation step.
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?
Provides clear prerequisite context ('requires server write opt-in and native target authorization') but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. The sibling end_edit_session implies the pairing, but no explicit 'use before write operations' guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'bounded' constraint (matching maxItems) and implies sequential pointer dereferencing, but it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., invalid addresses), whether memory is actually read at each step, or the exact return value. This is partial disclosure beyond annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous words. Every word contributes value, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (two params, no output schema) the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. It lacks critical context such as the expected return value (resolved address), when to use the tool vs alternatives, and possible failure conditions. It is complete for a very narrow definition but leaves gaps for an agent invoking it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema coverage is only 50% (baseAddress has a description but offsets does not), the description compensates by clarifying that offsets are 'pointer offsets' and forming a 'bounded sequence'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema for the offsets parameter, which otherwise lacks any description.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('base address plus a bounded sequence of pointer offsets'), which is a distinct operation from sibling tools like read_memory or dump_memory. It unambiguously identifies the tool's core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description simply defines the operation without contextualizing its use relative to memory reading or scanning tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'approved target' scope but does not disclose behavior like the output format or that it returns base addresses, paths, or other details. This is moderate additional context beyond annotations.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded for quick agent parsing.
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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description captures the essential purpose and scope. However, it does not mention what the returned list contains (e.g., paths, addresses, UUIDs), which could matter for an agent deciding whether this tool solves a task. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more return detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 for zero-param tools applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
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?
The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (Mach-O images loaded in the approved target). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memory_regions, which target a different subject. The phrasing is 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cases where list_memory_regions or other enumeration tools would be more appropriate, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left without contextual selection help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the scan targets 'readable regions' and is 'bounded', providing useful behavioral context beyond the structured data.
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?
One compact sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too brief for a tool with no output schema. It doesn't explain what the scan returns, how to use the results with filter_scan, or the implications of 'bounded' (e.g., result count limit).
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 has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'value' can be an integer or UTF-8 string and that the scan is 'bounded', which relates to maxResults, but it doesn't elaborate on valueType semantics or maxResults defaults.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Start a scan'), the object (integer/UTF-8 string), and scope (readable regions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like filter_scan or read_memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for beginning a scan workflow but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. It relies on sibling tool names (e.g., filter_scan) to infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'does not write files'. The added value is the base64 return format and the byte cap, which helps the agent anticipate output size and encoding. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
A single sentence with two clauses, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place; the redundant 'does not write files' is brief and reinforces the safety profile without bloating the description.
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?
Given no output schema, the description specifies the return format as base64 and includes the byte cap, covering the essential behavior. It does not mention error handling or interaction with mapped memory regions, but that can be inferred from sibling tools like list_memory_regions. Overall reasonably complete for a simple dump operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers address with a clear description, but length lacks any schema-level explanation. The description's 'at most 1048576 bytes' implies length corresponds to the number of bytes and enforces the cap, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's min/max. However, it does not explicitly state 'length is the number of bytes to dump', leaving a small interpretive gap.
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?
The description clearly states the action (return), the resource (memory dump), and key constraints (base64, max 1048576 bytes). It distinguishes itself from file-writing and patch tools, and the specific output format and size limit set it apart from a generic read_memory operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools like read_memory, nor does it state ideal scenarios, exclusions, or selection criteria beyond the byte limit and read-only behavior. The usage context is largely implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals mutation, and the description adds specific behavioral details: it invalidates previews and closes the active session. This provides useful context beyond the annotation and does not contradict it.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with two clear actions. No filler or redundant phrasing. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, one required parameter, and existing annotations, the description provides sufficient information. It does not specify return values, but no output schema exists, and the tool's effect is clear. However, it could have mentioned that unapplied patches are discarded, which is a slight gap.
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 schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'the active edit session' but does not explicitly explain that editSessionId is the identifier for that session. It provides minimal added meaning, so a 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses specific verbs 'Invalidate' and 'close' targeting 'previews' and 'active edit session', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like begin_edit_session and apply_memory_patch. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide alternatives. The context implies it is used to end an edit session, but no direct guidance is given. This is acceptable but minimal, warranting a 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that listing does not grant authorization to attach, which is an auth-related nuance not covered by the readOnly/idempotent hints. This is valuable for the agent to understand the tool's limitations.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and containing a single additional clarifying sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with minimal schema and helpful annotations, but the lack of parameter explanation and any description of return format leaves gaps. The core purpose is clear, but the agent is left to infer how to use the query parameter and what the output looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes a single optional 'query' parameter but provides no description, and the tool description does not explain how 'query' affects the results. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning ambiguous.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List attachable processes.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'attach' by clarifying that listing does not authorize attachment, eliminating ambiguity about its role.
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 implies the tool is used to discover attachable processes before a separate attachment action, and the note 'Listing does not authorize attachment' signals that this tool is not a substitute for 'attach'. While it does not explicitly name an alternative, the context is clear enough for the agent to infer when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds context by requiring a previously previewed patch and a one-time confirmation ID, which explains the non-idempotence and workflow. This goes beyond simply repeating annotation hints.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that contains all essential information without filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's narrow purpose.
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?
The description covers the key workflow constraint (previewed patch) and the one-time ID, which is sufficient given the sibling tools and simple parameter set. However, it does not describe success/error behavior or clarify editSessionId, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides zero descriptions for both parameters. The description explains 'confirmationId' as a one-time confirmation ID but gives no information about 'editSessionId', its origin, or its relation to the session. With 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('apply') and the resource ('previously previewed patch'), and specifies the one-time confirmation ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like preview_memory_patch and undo_last_patch.
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 explicitly limits usage to 'only a previously previewed patch' and emphasizes the one-time nature of the confirmation ID, implying a prerequisite of prior preview. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool reports capabilities, disclosing expected output. No further behavioral traits are provided, which is acceptable given the simplicity of a ping endpoint.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only ping tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it states what the tool checks and what it reports. No output schema is needed, and the sibling tools context reinforces the tool's unique role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema confirms an empty object. No additional parameter semantics are required.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('local Bit Slicer bridge') with a clear outcome ('report capabilities'). It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like read_memory, scan_value, or attach, which perform other operations.
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 implies the tool is for verifying bridge connectivity and capabilities before other operations, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though no sibling tool serves the same health-check role, so the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's main contribution is the 'currently approved target' statefulness, which is important behavioral context. It doesn't detail error cases or return format, but with strong annotations this is acceptable.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It states the action, the resource, and the required state (approved target), making it complete for an agent to select and invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivially), so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description effectively communicates what the tool operates on.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('mapped regions'), and adds the scope 'for the currently approved target,' distinguishing it from siblings like list_loaded_images. It is unambiguous and concise.
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 phrase 'currently approved target' provides clear context about the tool's dependency on a selected target, implying it should be used after target approval. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bitslicer-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/krisgnyc/bitslicer-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/krisgnyc/bitslicer-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bitslicer-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/krisgnyc/bitslicer-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/krisgnyc/bitslicer-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/krisgnyc/bitslicer-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server