Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
x64dbg MCP Server

x64dbg MCP Server

by ouonet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

detect_anti_debug

Scan the loaded executable for common anti-debugging techniques: API checks, timing checks, PEB flags, int 2d/3, TLS callbacks, and more. Identify protections to improve debugging effectiveness.

Instructions

Scan the loaded executable for common anti-debugging techniques: API checks (IsDebuggerPresent, NtQueryInformationProcess), timing checks, PEB flags, int 2d / int 3, TLS callbacks, etc.

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": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>"
    },
    "name": "detect_anti_debug"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionIdYesSession ID
moduleNoModule name (default: main executable)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lists techniques scanned but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, output format, or required privileges.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and examples, though it could be slightly more structured by separating techniques into a list.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema provided, and description omits what the tool returns (e.g., list of detected techniques or boolean). Incomplete for an agent to know expected output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no additional meaning beyond what schema already provides for sessionId and module.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description clearly states the tool scans for anti-debugging techniques and lists specific examples, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_section_anomalies or detect_packing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage for detecting anti-debug techniques in a loaded executable, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any exclusions.

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