Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IDA-MCP

IDA-MCP

by Captain-AI-Hub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Make Signature For Function

make_signature_for_function

Create byte signatures for function entry points from addresses or names, with wildcard operands and IDA, x64dbg, mask, or bitmask output for matching functions across binaries.

Instructions

Create unique byte signatures for function entry points. Resolves each

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_for_function"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addrsYesFunction address(es) or name(s) to create signatures for (e.g. 'main', '0x401000', or ['main', '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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden, but it discloses almost nothing about behavior — the second sentence is truncated at 'Resolves each', losing whatever it meant to say about resolution or failure. Nothing is said about whether the operation is read-only, what happens when a function can't resolve, or how format/max_length affect output.

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?

The description is short but not by design — it ends mid-sentence ('Resolves each'), indicating truncation rather than economy. What remains is front-loaded, but an incomplete fragment does not earn its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to carry weight it does not. It omits any explanation of the 'ida'/'x64dbg'/'mask'/'bitmask' formats, wildcard_operands semantics, or what a returned signature looks like, leaving the agent dependent on the schema alone.

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%, with all six parameters documented including format values, timeout, and the multi-instance requirement for instance_id. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function entry points'), which reads clearly against siblings like make_signature_for_range. However, the description never names those siblings, and the trailing fragment 'Resolves each' is cut off mid-thought, so the purpose statement is clear but incomplete.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus make_signature or make_signature_for_range, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an analyzed function or an open database. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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