storm_showReads pre-decompiled hot-set entries from SQLite for Storm-engine games to inspect cached reverse-engineering facts without calling Ghidra.
Read pre-decompiled hot-set entries from SQLite; no Ghidra call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| max_bytes | No | ||
| symbolized | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that reads come from a local SQLite hot-set cache with no Ghidra call, which explains latency/isolation behavior, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or what the max_bytes build/symbolized options affect.
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?
The single clause is front-loaded with the verb and free of filler, which is good structure. But for a five-parameter tool with zero schema documentation it is arguably too terse to be 'appropriately sized', leaving the definition under-specified rather than lean.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. Still, the description omits any guidance on the five undocumented inputs and does not clarify what a 'hot-set entry' or 'build' means, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct call beyond the single required 'query'.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0% for five parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining them, and it explains none. Terms like 'query', 'build', 'symbolized', 'limit', and 'max_bytes' are left entirely to the agent's guesswork, and 'hot-set' is never defined.
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 ('Read') and resource ('pre-decompiled hot-set entries from SQLite'), and the 'no Ghidra call' clause implicitly separates it from the Ghidra-backed siblings like storm_decomp. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the core 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?
The 'no Ghidra call' remark hints at the use case (fast lookup of already-decompiled data rather than invoking Ghidra), which is implied routing guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over storm_decomp, storm_resolve, or storm_find, so the agent must infer the selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.