list_importsLists imported functions and their module names from IDA Pro instances, with pagination and optional name filtering.
List imported functions with module names.
| 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 behavioral burden. It says nothing about read-only safety, that results come from the currently loaded binary/idb, how pagination behaves, or what the response shape is beyond 'module names'.
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 no filler, which is efficient. It is arguably under-specified for a 5-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted and the core purpose leads.
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?
For a simple list tool with a fully-documented schema and no output schema, the essentials are present but thin. It omits scope (which binary/database the imports come from) and pagination interaction, which an agent would benefit from knowing.
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 all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no filtering or pagination semantics beyond that, so the 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 ('List imported functions') plus the key returned attribute ('with module names'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_exports and list_functions. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools, but the resource 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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as an open database, and no routing to alternatives like list_exports when the agent wants symbols a binary provides rather than consumes. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.