Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IDA-MCP

IDA-MCP

by Captain-AI-Hub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Make Signature For Range

make_signature_for_range

Create a byte signature for a specified address range, with wildcard operand support and selectable output formats for relocatable pattern matching in binary analysis.

Instructions

Create a byte signature for a specific address range (e.g. a selected

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": {
      "start": "<start>",
      "end": "<end>"
    },
    "name": "make_signature_for_range"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYesEnd address or name (exclusive, e.g. '0x401020')
startYesStart address or name (e.g. '0x401000')
formatNoOutput format: 'ida' (default), 'x64dbg', 'mask', or 'bitmask'ida
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds
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

C2.4/5.0
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. It never states what the returned signature is suitable for (pattern scanning vs. patching), how wildcards/relocation affect output, or whether a live database/instance is needed — all of which matter for a signature-generation tool.

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 reflects truncation rather than discipline — the single sentence ends mid-thought, leaving the parenthetical example unclosed and the scope undefined.

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?

Six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and two close siblings in the toolset that the description does not differentiate. An agent cannot confidently choose this tool over make_signature or make_signature_for_function from this text.

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 coverage is 100%: start/end exclusivity, format enum values, wildcard_operands default, and instance_id requirements are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

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

The verb+resource ('Create a byte signature') is identifiable, but the sentence is cut off mid-clause ('e.g. a selected') and never completes the scope. It also fails to distinguish this from sibling tools make_signature and make_signature_for_function, which an agent would reasonably confuse it with.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over make_signature (whole-function) or make_signature_for_function. The agent is left to infer the choice purely from tool names.

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