Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
JNISleuth-MCP

JNISleuth-MCP

by nighthawkk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_cross_boundary_callgraph

Generates a cross-boundary call graph linking Java methods to native code, helping analyze JNI calls during Android reverse engineering and malware analysis.

Instructions

Alias for get_cross_boundary_slice.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "java_method": "<java_method>"
    },
    "name": "get_cross_boundary_callgraph"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apk_pathNo
java_methodYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what the traversal covers, how expensive it is, or what the response looks like. Calling it an alias does not tell an agent how the tool behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; the length is not the problem, the absence of content is.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description needed to explain both the traversal semantics and the arguments. It supplies neither, leaving the definition unusable without consulting a different tool's entry.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters (apk_path and java_method), and the description adds no meaning whatsoever about their formats, defaults, or whether apk_path is optional. The required java_method and its expected notation are entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description only asserts an equivalence ('Alias for get_cross_boundary_slice') and never states a verb or resource describing what the tool actually returns. An agent must open the sibling tool's definition to learn the purpose, and it is unclear why an alias exists under a different name (callgraph vs. slice).

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?

'Alias' weakly implies the two tools are interchangeable, but there is no statement of when to prefer this one over get_cross_boundary_slice or over siblings like trace_jni_upcalls and trace_jni_callbacks. No preconditions or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools