force_recompileInvalidate cached Hex-Rays decompilations for specific functions or all functions, so IDA regenerates them on the next decompile.
Invalidate cached Hex-Rays decompilations so they are regenerated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| addresses | No | Function name(s)/address(es) to invalidate (comma-separated ok); omit to clear all cached decompilations | |
| instance_id | No | Instance id override |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the core trait: the cache is invalidated and decompilations are lazily regenerated on next access. However, it says nothing about side effects, permissions, scope of invalidation cost, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler that states exactly what happens. Nothing to trim.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only behavioral source. It covers the core effect adequately but omits return behavior, scope of the invalidation, and any usage context an agent would need to invoke it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the important 'omit to clear all' semantics for addresses. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (invalidate) and resource (cached Hex-Rays decompilations), plus the intended effect (regenerated). This distinguishes it from siblings like decompile or wait_for_analysis. The name 'force_recompile' is slightly misleading versus the described invalidation behavior, but the description itself corrects that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives. It never says when an agent should force cache invalidation versus simply calling decompile again. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.