get_struct_infoRetrieve detailed structure or union definitions with fields from an IDA Pro binary, enabling reverse engineering analysis and multi-instance coordination.
Get detailed structure/union definition with fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Structure/union 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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation and that fields are returned, but says nothing about error handling when the struct is not found, required analysis state, or the shape of the returned definition.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is efficient, though the phrase 'with fields' is slightly redundant padding.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must imply the return value; 'detailed structure/union definition with fields' gives a minimal sense of it but no structural detail. It is adequate for a simple read, but thin for an agent needing to know what the response contains.
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 name, timeout, and instance_id. The description adds 'structure/union name', which merely restates the schema's own wording without adding format or accepted-value detail. 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 and resource ('Get detailed structure/union definition with fields'), which is clear and reasonably distinguishes it from list_structs by emphasizing detail. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like list_structs. The agent must infer its role from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.