Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IDA-MCP

IDA-MCP

by Captain-AI-Hub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Make Signature

make_signature

Generates compact, unique byte signatures for addresses or function names to identify code across binaries, with IDA, x64dbg, mask, and bitmask output formats.

Instructions

Create unique byte signatures for addresses. Generates the shortest

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "addrs": "<addrs>"
    },
    "name": "make_signature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addrsYesAddress(es) or name(s) to create unique signatures for (e.g. '0x401000', 'main', or ['0x401000', 'sub_402000'])
formatNoOutput format: 'ida' (default), 'x64dbg', 'mask', or 'bitmask'ida
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds
max_lengthNoMaximum signature length in bytes before giving up (default: 1000)
instance_idNoREQUIRED whenever more than one database is open (from open_database's result or list_databases()); optional only while exactly one instance is live.
wildcard_operandsNoWildcard instruction operands for relocatable signatures (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / instance_id / description
      Previous value: -"Instance id override"New value: +"REQUIRED whenever more than one database is open (from open_database's result or list_databases()); optional only while exactly one instance is live."
  2. First observedv0.9.7

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires the database to be analyzed, what happens when no unique signature is found within max_length, or what the result looks like. The second sentence is truncated ('Generates the shortest'), leaving even the one behavioral hint incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Brevity here is under-specification rather than economy: the second sentence is cut off mid-thought, so the description is not merely short but structurally broken. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the one-line purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description should explain what a signature is and how it is returned, which it does not. The schema does compensate by documenting all six parameters, and the format enum values are listed there, but the return shape and multi-instance behavior remain unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including format, max_length, wildcard_operands, and the instance_id requirement is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or wildcard 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Create unique byte signatures for addresses'), which is clear on its own. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the closely named siblings make_signature_for_function, make_signature_for_range, and find_xref_signatures, so the agent must infer that this one operates on arbitrary addresses rather than functions or ranges.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus make_signature_for_function or make_signature_for_range, nor any prerequisites (e.g., an analyzed database, an open instance). The word 'addresses' faintly implies the contrast, but that is inference rather than guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools