Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
secureaudit-mcp

secureaudit-mcp

by rev2ret
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

check_binary_protections

Parse compiled Windows PE and Linux ELF binaries to verify active defensive protections including ASLR, DEP/NX, SafeSEH, and PIE.

Instructions

Parses compiled binary files (Windows PE .exe/.dll or Linux ELF executables) to verify active defensive compiler protections including ASLR, DEP/NX, SafeSEH, and PIE.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "check_binary_protections"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesAbsolute path to the compiled executable or library to analyze.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes a read-only parsing operation (no modification mentioned) but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or require special permissions. The lack of side-effect disclosure is a minor gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence (18 words) that conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every word is meaningful.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what protections it checks. However, it does not hint at the return format (e.g., a report), which would have increased completeness.

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?

The single parameter (filePath) is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond noting the file types (PE/ELF), which is already implied by the schema description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's action (parses and verifies) and resource (compiled binary files, Windows PE or Linux ELF). It lists specific protections (ASLR, DEP/NX, SafeSEH, PIE), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle source code auditing, vulnerability remediation, or string extraction.

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?

The description implies the tool is for checking binary protections but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or context is 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