infer_typesGuess and apply types at specified addresses or symbols using IDA's type inference to improve reverse engineering analysis.
Guess the type at each address with IDA's type inference and apply it as a guessed type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| addresses | Yes | Address(es) or symbol name(s) to guess and apply types for (comma-separated ok) | |
| 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 implies a mutation (applying a guessed type) but never states whether existing types are overwritten, whether the change is reversible, or what analysis state is required. The phrase 'guessed type' hints at tentative semantics but nothing more.
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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse to carry the needed behavioral context.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, but with fully documented parameters. The description omits the two things the schema cannot convey: when to prefer it over manual type setters and what side effects applying a guessed type has.
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 addresses, timeout, and instance_id are already documented. The description only restates 'at each address' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 ('guess/infer the type') and resource ('at each address'), and notes the result is applied as a 'guessed type'. This distinguishes it from manual setters like set_local_variable_type, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not reference alternatives such as set_local_variable_type or set_global_variable_type. The agent must infer the context 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.