Retrieve all graph data for the function at a given address: bounds, labels, callers, callees, imports, strings, globals, and vtable slots.
Everything the graph knows about the function containing addr: bounds, fragments, labels, vtable slots, callers, callees, imports called, strings and globals touched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addr | Yes | ||
| build | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether results are read-only (implied), how 'limit' truncates results, how 'build' affects lookup, or whether large functions cause pagination. Only the return categories are implied.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core resource and then the returned categories. Efficient, though the trailing list is long and could be trimmed without losing clarity.
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 a tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never says how parameters shape the result or what defaults do, leaving an agent guessing about invocation.
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 three parameters, and the description never explains 'addr', 'build', or 'limit'. With such low coverage, the description needed to compensate but does not mention any parameter at all.
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 resource (function at addr) and enumerates exactly what it returns: bounds, fragments, labels, vtable slots, callers, callees, imports, strings, globals. Clearly distinct from siblings like class_info, global_info, and disassemble.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as disassemble, xrefs_to, callgraph, or class_info. The description implies a broad 'get everything about a function' use case but does not state conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.