rename_functionAssign a new C identifier to an IDA Pro function by name or address, enabling clearer labels and organized binary analysis.
Rename function. Accepts function name or address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Function name or address (hex/decimal) | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| new_name | Yes | New function name (valid C identifier) | |
| 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. It never states whether the rename is persisted to the IDB, whether it requires save_idb, whether it fails on undefined addresses, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutation tool this is a substantial 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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding, though the second sentence largely duplicates what the schema already conveys about the address parameter.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no discussion of persistence or failure behavior. Although parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description omits the behavioral context an agent needs to invoke a rename safely and correctly.
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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'function name or address' merely mirrors the address parameter's own schema description rather than adding new meaning (e.g., preferred form, ambiguous-hex handling).
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+resource ('Rename function') that an agent can immediately understand. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like rename_local_variable or rename_global_variable, and the second sentence mostly restates the input flexibility already apparent from the schema.
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 guidance on when to use this versus rename_local_variable/rename_global_variable, nor any prerequisites such as the function needing to exist or analysis having run. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.