Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IDA-MCP

IDA-MCP

by Captain-AI-Hub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Disasm

disasm

Disassemble functions into plain listing lines with hex addresses for analysis. Provide function addresses to get raw disassembly without color tags.

Instructions

Disassemble function(s) into listing lines (hex addresses, no color tags).

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": {
      "addr": "<addr>"
    },
    "name": "disasm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addrYesFunction address(es) - single or comma-separated
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds
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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the output format (hex addresses, no color tags). It says nothing about read-only safety, whether analysis must have completed, behavior on invalid/unknown addresses, or truncation/size limits, which are the relevant traits for a read-heavy disassembly call.

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; the parenthetical output note is earned because it tells the agent what to expect. Minor detail like 'no color tags' is a formatting nicety rather than critical information.

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 simple read tool with a fully documented schema, the essentials are present, but the description never positions this against decompile/linear_disasm and gives no hint about ordering, pagination, or what happens when the target isn't a function. Enough to call, not enough to call correctly on the first try.

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 instance_id's important multi-database requirement and addr's comma-separated form, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats 'function(s)' and adds no semantics for timeout or instance_id beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (disassemble) and resource (function(s)) plus the output shape (listing lines with hex addresses). It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as decompile or linear_disasm, so an agent can't be fully sure which of the three to pick from the description alone.

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 guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (decompile for pseudo-code, linear_disasm for range-based disassembly). The usage is only inferable from the verb, leaving the agent to guess at routing.

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