Identifies a global variable's type and usage by analyzing RTTI vtables, writers, readers, and referenced qualified-name strings.
What lives in a global: writers, readers, and the RTTI classes whose vtables the writers take, which usually identifies a singleton pointer's type. Also the nearest qualified-name strings the writers reference.
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by listing returned data categories (writers, readers, RTTI classes, nearest qualified-name strings). However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or how pagination/errors behave, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.
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?
Two dense sentences with no obvious waste, front-loading the core resource ('What lives in a global'). The jargon is heavy but appropriate for the domain, and the structure is efficient.
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 three-parameter binary-analysis query with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: parameter meanings, usage relative to siblings, and safety profile. It describes returned data categories but is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool reliably without opening other artifacts.
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% and the description never mentions the parameters addr, build, or limit. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters; an agent cannot learn from the description what addr should contain or how build and limit affect results.
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 what the tool returns for a global: writers, readers, RTTI classes, and referenced qualified-name strings. This is a specific resource and output scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrefs_to and class_info. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name alternatives, but the purpose is clear.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as xrefs_to, class_info, labels, or find. Usage is only implied by the word 'global'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.