Skip to main content
Glama

list_symbols

List all ActionScript classes and symbols in a SWF file, showing packages and class names to understand its structure before full decompilation.

Instructions

List all ActionScript classes and symbols in a SWF file.

This tool provides an overview of the ActionScript structure without decompiling, showing packages, classes, and the total symbol count. Useful for exploring a SWF before full decompilation.

Args: swf_path: Absolute path to the SWF file

Returns: Dictionary with: - success: Whether listing succeeded - type: ActionScript type (AS2, AS3, or Unknown) - packages: Dictionary mapping package names to class lists - classes: Complete list of fully-qualified class names - total_symbols: Total number of classes found - message: Summary message

Example: >>> list_symbols("/path/to/game.swf") { "success": true, "type": "AS3", "packages": { "com.game": ["Main", "Player", "Enemy"], "com.game.utils": ["Vector2D", "Math"] }, "classes": ["com.game.Main", "com.game.Player", ...], "total_symbols": 5, "message": "Found 5 AS3 classes in 2 packages" }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
swf_pathYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, but description thoroughly explains behavior, return format, and that it's a non-destructive read operation. Lacks mention of error conditions but is sufficient.

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?

Well-structured with header, args, returns, and example; each section adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Fully explains the tool's purpose, single parameter, and detailed return structure; output schema exists, so no need to describe return values further.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema only specifies type string; description adds 'Absolute path to the SWF file' and provides an example, enhancing clarity beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it lists ActionScript classes and symbols without decompiling, contrasting with sibling tools like decompile_swf and extract_actionscript.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly suggests using 'before full decompilation' and contrasts with siblings, but could more directly state when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sublimnl/ffdecmcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server