get_function_signatureRetrieve the best available function signature from an IDA Pro instance by address or name, with optional timeout and instance override.
Get the best available function signature string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addr | Yes | Function address or name | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Best available' hints that multiple sources are tried and a fallback is returned, but there is no disclosure of what happens on failure, what format the string takes, or whether demangled/undecorated forms are preferred.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true economy.
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?
With no output schema, the description is the only place to explain the return value, yet it says nothing about the format of the 'signature string' or what 'best available' resolves to. For a resolution tool surrounded by signature-producing siblings, this leaves an agent unable to predict the result.
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 addr (address or name), timeout, and instance_id parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Get ... function signature string'), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many signature-related siblings (make_signature, make_signature_for_function, make_signature_for_range, set_function_prototype, decompile), leaving the 'best available' phrasing to imply behavior without routing.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. In a suite with five-plus signature/prototype tools, the agent is given no basis to choose this one over make_signature or decompile.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.