Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mem-forensics-mcp

mem-forensics-mcp

by x746b
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

memory_find_injected_code

Identify code injection in memory dumps by scanning with Rust malfind, falling back to Vol3 malfind and YARA if needed.

Instructions

Scan for code injection. Uses Rust malfind (fast), falls back to Vol3 malfind + YARA.

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": {
      "image_path": "<image_path>"
    },
    "name": "memory_find_injected_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pidNoScan specific process only
yara_scanNo
image_pathYesPath to memory dump file
dump_payloadsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.2

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context about the tool's implementation: 'Uses Rust malfind (fast), falls back to Vol3 malfind + YARA.' This reveals the dual-method approach and fallback behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what output to expect, or any side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Scan for code injection') and immediately adds technical detail about the fallback mechanism. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain return values, potential side effects, or the meaning of key parameters like dump_payloads. The description fails to provide enough context for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and limitations.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. However, it mentions no parameters directly. The description's reference to Rust malfind and YARA hints at the yara_scan parameter but does not clarify the meanings of yara_scan or dump_payloads. The schema already describes image_path and pid, so the description adds no additional semantic value.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Scan for code injection.' The verb 'scan' and specific target 'code injection' make the function distinct from vague generic names. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like memory_hunt_process_anomalies, which might also detect injected code, so it loses a point.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The context is limited to the tool's own functionality without comparative guidance.

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