Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IDA-MCP

IDA-MCP

by Captain-AI-Hub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Callgraph

callgraph

Build a call graph by traversing call references from specified root functions or addresses, with configurable depth, node limits, and timeout for reverse engineering analysis.

Instructions

Build a call graph by walking call references from the root function(s).

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": {
      "roots": "<roots>"
    },
    "name": "callgraph"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootsYesRoot function name(s) or address(es) (comma-separated ok)
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds
max_depthNoMaximum call depth from the roots
max_nodesNoMaximum functions to include
instance_idNoREQUIRED whenever more than one database is open (from open_database's result or list_databases()); optional only while exactly one instance is live.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / instance_id / description
      Previous value: -"Instance id override"New value: +"REQUIRED whenever more than one database is open (from open_database's result or list_databases()); optional only while exactly one instance is live."
  2. First observedv0.9.7

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It says nothing about what happens at unresolved/external/imported calls, whether the walk is breadth- or depth-first, whether output is a tree/edge list, or what cost a large graph incurs — the depth/node caps live only in the schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the outcome and the traversal mechanism, no filler. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

This is a 5-parameter traversal tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain traversal semantics and result shape — and it does not. Given the richness of the sibling set (get_callees, get_callers, trace_data_flow, xrefs_from/to), the missing differentiation and return-format detail is a real gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, including the unusual instance_id rule and the anyOf forms for roots, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior beyond restating 'root function(s)', which warrants only the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Build a call graph') and the mechanism ('walking call references from the root function(s)'), so an agent knows this is a recursive traversal rather than a lookup. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_callees/get_callers (direct neighbors) or trace_data_flow, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces here.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'Walking' implies transitive/recursive expansion versus get_callees' single-hop listing, but that distinction is left to inference rather than stated, and no alternative tool is named.

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