list_exportsRetrieve exported functions and symbols from an IDA Pro binary to support reverse engineering. Includes pagination, filtering, and instance selection.
List exported functions/symbols.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of items (1..1000) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (>=0) | |
| pattern | No | Optional name filter | |
| 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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no ordering guarantee, no pagination behavior beyond what the schema defaults imply, no note on whether exports exist for all binary types. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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 with no filler and the key nouns front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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?
Five optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description should explain more about what an 'export' is in this IDA context and what the response looks like. As written, an agent knows the resource but not enough to call it confidently or route to it correctly.
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 count, offset, pattern, timeout, and instance_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, filtering semantics, or format hints beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.
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 (List) and resource (exported functions/symbols), so an agent can tell it is not a generic function lister. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as list_functions, list_imports, or list_globals, which is the one thing missing for a 5.
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 indication of when to choose this over list_functions or list_imports, nor any precondition (e.g. a database must be open). Usage is left entirely to inference from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.