storm_resolveResolve VA, RVA, or full symbol names for one build of CyberConnect2 Storm-engine games, returning build, program, SHA, address, symbol, confidence, and source.
Resolve a VA, RVA or full symbol name in one build. Cheap and local; returns build/program/sha/rva/va/name/confidence/source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | No | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| addr_kind | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe/offline profile is covered. 'Cheap and local' is consistent with these and adds a mild performance signal, but no error behavior, confidence semantics, or fallback behavior is disclosed.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action before any detail. The second half enumerating return fields (build/program/sha/rva/va/name/confidence/source) is largely wasted space given an output schema already exists.
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 3-param resolution tool with an output schema, the core purpose and locality are covered, but 'build' is undocumented, the return-field list duplicates the output schema, and there is no routing guidance among the many storm_* siblings. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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%, so the description carries the burden. It compensates partially by stating the accepted target forms (VA, RVA, or full symbol name), which maps to the target param and the addr_kind enum, but the 'build' parameter is never explained and no format syntax (e.g., hex prefix) is given.
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 verb (resolve) and resource (symbol name / VA / RVA) and scopes it to 'one build', which is more precise than the bare title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like storm_find or storm_symbolize, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
'Cheap and local' implies this is the lightweight first choice and hints at preferring it over heavier resolution paths, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.