list_functionsList functions from IDA Pro instances with pagination and optional name filtering. Retrieve function names and addresses for reverse engineering analysis.
List functions with pagination and optional filtering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of items (1..1000) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (>=0) | |
| pattern | No | Optional name filter pattern | |
| 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 behavioral burden. It confirms pagination and optional filtering exist, but says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, default result size, or what happens when no functions exist — significant gaps for a listing tool with 5 params.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is perhaps too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing is wasted.
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 annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description should do more work — at minimum what a listed function record contains (name, address, etc.) or typical pagination behavior. As written, an agent knows it lists functions but little about the result set.
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 count, offset, pattern, timeout, and instance_id. The description's mention of 'pagination and optional filtering' loosely maps to count/offset/pattern but adds no syntax or default semantics beyond the schema. 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 clear verb+resource ('List functions') and scopes the behavior ('with pagination and optional filtering'). It does not differentiate from similarly-named siblings like list_local_types or list_globals, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_globals or list_local_types, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open database or completed analysis). Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.