Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IDA-MCP

IDA-MCP

by Captain-AI-Hub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Find Xref Signatures

find_xref_signatures

Generates signatures for code locations referencing an address, with IDA, x64dbg, mask, or bitmask output to identify binary locations by cross-reference.

Instructions

Find signatures for code locations that reference an address. For each

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": {
      "addrs": "<addrs>"
    },
    "name": "find_xref_signatures"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNoNumber of shortest signatures to return per address (default: 5)
addrsYesAddress(es) or name(s) to find XREF signatures for (e.g. a data address referenced by code)
formatNoOutput format: 'ida' (default), 'x64dbg', 'mask', or 'bitmask'ida
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds
max_lengthNoMaximum signature length in bytes (default: 250)
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

C2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the lookup intent and then cuts off, disclosing nothing about how paths are enumerated, cost (search over referencing code sites), or output content.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, one of which is an unfinished fragment ('For each'). This is under-specification, not conciseness; the core value of the description appears to have been lost mid-write, leaving it feeling incomplete rather than lean.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, completeness depends heavily on the description. It should explain what is returned (per-address signature sets, bounded by top) and any prerequisites, e.g. that the database should be analyzed first; it instead stops mid-sentence.

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 all six parameters including format enum values, top, max_length, and the instance_id requirement are documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, which merits the baseline 3, not more.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence gives a clear verb and resource (find signatures for code locations referencing an address), which is specific enough to distinguish it from generic signature makers. However, the description is truncated mid-sentence ('For each'), so the stated purpose is only partially delivered.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. Several siblings overlap conceptually (make_signature, make_signature_for_function, make_signature_for_range), and the description gives no criteria for choosing among them.

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