rename_global_variableRename a global variable in an IDA Pro analysis by providing the exact old symbol name and a valid C identifier as the new name.
Rename global variable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| new_name | Yes | New name (valid C identifier) | |
| old_name | Yes | Existing global symbol name (exact match) | |
| 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, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, whether references/xrefs are updated, permission needs, or reversibility. This is a mutation tool with zero behavioral disclosure.
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?
It is short, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. A single tautological sentence does not earn its place as a useful definition.
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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is inadequate: it omits what the rename affects (references, xrefs, symbol tables) and any error/edge-case behavior. The well-covered schema is the only reason this is not a 1.
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 old_name, new_name, timeout, and instance_id. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 'Rename global variable.' is a verbatim restatement of the tool name/title with no additional specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like rename_function or rename_local_variable, so an agent gets no help telling them apart.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g. requiring the global to exist or analysis to be complete). 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.