Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
JNISleuth-MCP

JNISleuth-MCP

by nighthawkk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

import_dynamic_trace

Import dynamic JNI trace JSON to synchronize recovered Java-to-native types with Ghidra, optionally targeting a named project.

Instructions

Alias for sync_ghidra_jni_types.

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": {
      "trace_json": "<trace_json>"
    },
    "name": "import_dynamic_trace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
trace_jsonYes
project_nameNo

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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers nothing. It does not disclose that a 'sync'/'import' likely mutates a Ghidra project, whether existing types are overwritten, what permissions or open project are required, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness; a four-word alias sentence earns its place only as a pointer and omits everything an agent needs. There is no front-loaded statement of action or scope.

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?

For a tool with a required string parameter, a second undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is entirely inadequate. Nothing tells the agent how to construct the call or what effect it has on the Ghidra/IDA state.

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 both parameters. The description adds no meaning to trace_json (what format, what content of a dynamic trace is expected) or project_name (target Ghidra project, default behavior if omitted), leaving the agent to guess required input shape.

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 is only an alias pointer: 'Alias for sync_ghidra_jni_types.' It never says what the operation does, what a 'dynamic trace' is, or what 'importing' accomplishes. An agent must open the sibling tool to learn the actual verb and resource, which is pure indirection rather than a stated purpose.

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?

Saying it is an alias implies interchangeability with sync_ghidra_jni_types, which is minimal routing value. It gives no conditions for choosing this over the sibling or over sync_ida_jni_types, no prerequisites, and does not even clarify whether this name is deprecated.

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