Loading ToolBench
MCP server providing debugger control and analysis tools for x64dbg via HTTP transport
This server has 22 tools with severe definition gaps. Most tools lack parameter descriptions entirely, only 'action' and a few optional fields are documented. Schemas are present but minimal: many parameters like 'address', 'data', 'pattern' have no descriptions explaining format, constraints, or valid ranges. Tool descriptions are generic one-liners (10-30 chars) that do not explain WHEN to use each tool or WHAT it returns. No output schemas are documented. Error handling is absent from the visible code. The mega-tool pattern (flattening oneOf variants into a single flat schema with auto-generated action docs) is creative but does not compensate for missing parameter docs and output specs. Per-tool scores average ~32 due to consistent underdocumentation across all 22 tools.
Perform static and dynamic code analysis.
Manage labels, comments, and bookmarks.
Manage breakpoints (software, hardware, memory, DLL, exception).
Execute x64dbg commands directly.
Analyze and manipulate control flow.
Execute core debugger actions.
Disassemble code and analyze instructions.
Parameter descriptions missing across all 22 tools. Fields like 'address', 'data', 'pattern', 'size', 'value' have no descriptions explaining format, constraints, or valid ranges. LLMs cannot infer whether 'address' expects '0x400000' or '1048576' or a symbol name.
Tool descriptions are generic one-liners (10-30 chars) that do not explain WHEN to use each tool, what it returns, or how it differs from similar tools. E.g., 'Manage breakpoints' does not distinguish software vs hardware vs memory breakpoints or explain the return format.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 37 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
Dump memory regions and process state.
Manage exception handling and filters.
Enumerate and inspect process handles.
Query and manage debug logs.
Query memory map and page information.
Read/write memory and manage memory regions.
Query loaded modules and their properties.
Apply and manage code patches.
Query and manage process information.
Read/write CPU registers and flags.
Search memory for patterns and strings.
Inspect and manipulate the call stack.
Query and manage debug symbols.
Manage and inspect threads.
Control execution tracing and trace analysis.
No output schemas documented. LLMs cannot plan downstream tool calls or extract required fields (e.g., does x64dbg_disasm return instruction bytes, mnemonics, addresses?). This violates the pattern:tool requirement that output structure be documented.
Many parameters lack type constraints. 'action' fields use string enums (good), but 'address', 'data', 'pattern' are bare strings with no format, length, or character restrictions documented. Rubric baseline: 100% of A+ tools have typed, constrained parameters.
No error handling guidance visible. Tools do not document what errors can occur, whether they are retryable, or what the LLM should do next. E.g., if x64dbg_debug fails with 'debugger not attached', should the agent retry or call a different tool?