list_globalsList global non-function symbols from IDA Pro binaries with pagination and optional name filtering, enabling reverse engineering analysis across instances.
List global (non-function) symbols with pagination.
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination, which is useful, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only/scoped per instance, what happens on invalid offsets, or what a returned 'global symbol' contains — significant gaps for a no-annotation tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the core action and the scoping qualifier appear first.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description could reasonably say more about the shape of returned global symbols, and it does not. For a simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters it is adequate, but not fully complete.
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 adds no further meaning beyond repeating the pagination concept, which matches the baseline 3 for schema-complete tools.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List global symbols') and clarifies scope with '(non-function)', which distinguishes it from the sibling list_functions. It does not, however, explicitly mention how it relates to other list_* siblings such as list_structs or list_local_types.
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?
Usage is only implied: the '(non-function)' qualifier hints the tool applies when the agent wants data symbols rather than functions, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.