Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IDA-MCP

IDA-MCP

by Captain-AI-Hub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Diff Before After

diff_before_after

Snapshot a function’s decompilation, run a specified modification tool, and return a unified diff to verify changes before and after.

Instructions

Snapshot a function's decompilation, run a modification tool, return the unified diff.

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "diff_before_after"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesName of the modification tool to invoke
addressYesFunction name or address to snapshot
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds
action_argsNoArguments passed to the action tool
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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the internal sequence (snapshot → dispatch action → diff), which is the key non-obvious trait. However, it never says whether the action's changes are persisted, what happens if the action fails or times out, or whether the diff reflects only changed lines or full function text — critical facts for a mutation-performing wrapper.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the outcome ('return the unified diff') is stated up front rather than buried. Its brevity borders on under-specification for a five-parameter composite tool, but there is no wasted text.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a wrapper that mutates database state, with no annotations and no output schema, the description mentions the return value ('unified diff') but omits failure/timeout behavior, persistence semantics, and typical action names. Combined with a well-documented schema, it is barely adequate rather than complete.

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%, so the schema already explains address, action, action_args, timeout, and the multi-instance rule for instance_id. The description only hints that action refers to another modification tool and address is the snapshot target, adding little beyond structured data — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete three-step behavior — snapshot decompilation, invoke a modification tool, return a unified diff — which is specific enough to distinguish this wrapper from sibling tools like decompile, apply_patch, or patch_bytes. It stops short of naming which modification tools are valid targets, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this wrapper versus calling decompile and a patch tool directly, nor on preconditions (e.g., analysis must be complete, database open). The phrase 'run a modification tool' only implies the wrapping use case rather than stating it as a selection rule.

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