py_exec_fileExecute a Python script file in an IDA Pro session, capture the output, and optionally target an instance or set a timeout.
Execute a Python script file in IDA context and capture output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| file_path | Yes | Absolute path to a Python script to execute | |
| 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 disclosure burden. It does note that output is captured, but says nothing about the fact that executing arbitrary Python can mutate the IDB, what permissions/environment the script runs in, how errors surface, or how timeout behaves — significant omissions for an arbitrary-code-execution tool.
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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the contextual gaps rather than deliberate economy.
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 arbitrary code execution with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits mutation risk, environment/auth context, output shape, and error semantics, and says nothing about when a script file is preferable to py_eval.
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%, with all three parameters (file_path, timeout, instance_id) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the generic 'in IDA context' framing and no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.
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?
The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Execute a Python script file') and adds the execution context ('in IDA context') plus the output behavior ('capture output'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling py_eval, which also runs Python code.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though py_eval sits right next to it in the sibling list and is the natural alternative for inline code. The agent must infer that this is for on-disk script files while py_eval is for expressions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.