Find all code references to a function, global, string, vtable, or IAT slot by address to trace callers and usage in a game executable.
Code references to an address (function, global, string, vtable, IAT slot).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addr | Yes | ||
| build | No | ||
| kinds | 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 full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement of result ordering, default truncation (schema default limit=100 suggests capped output), whether addr is a VA or RVA, or pagination. It is not misleading, but it is a near-total omission for an unannotated read tool.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no waste and the key concept is front-loaded, so it is structurally tight. But the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency, given four undocumented parameters and no behavioral context.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage on a four-parameter tool, the description does not supply enough for an agent to call this correctly. The nature of the return (list of reference sites) and any limits on it are left unexplained.
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 four parameters (addr, build, kinds, limit), and the description compensates only weakly: the enumerated kinds (function/global/string/vtable/IAT slot) loosely hint at the 'kinds' filter, but addr format, build semantics, and limit behavior are entirely undocumented. The description leaves the agent guessing on most inputs.
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?
The fragment 'Code references to an address' identifies the resource (cross-references) and adds the referenced-entity kinds (function, global, string, vtable, IAT slot), which is more than a bare restatement of the name. However, there is no verb or direction cue beyond the name itself, and no differentiation from siblings such as callgraph or function_info.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like callgraph, function_info, or find, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.