py_evalExecute Python code in an IDA Pro context through MCP to automate reverse engineering, inspect binaries, or query functions across IDA instances.
Execute Python code in IDA context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Python code to execute in IDA context | |
| 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, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state that arbitrary code executes against the live IDA database, that it may mutate state, or what it returns. For a raw code-execution tool this is a significant gap.
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 terse sentence with zero waste and the core action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than an efficient coverage of the necessary information.
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 an arbitrary Python execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain side effects, return behavior, and instance scoping. None of this is present, so it is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently.
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 code, timeout, and instance_id. The description only restates the code parameter and adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (Execute) and resource (Python code) and scopes it to 'IDA context', so the basic purpose is unmistakable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling py_exec_file or ida_python_reference, leaving the agent to guess which code-execution tool applies.
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 guidance on when to use this versus py_exec_file, ida_python_reference, or the many specialized tools (decompile, disasm, patch_bytes). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context conditions are given, so the agent must infer usage 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.