save_databasePersist the current or specified IDA Pro database to disk as an .i64 file. Use an optional instance ID to choose which analysis session to save.
Save the current (or specified) IDA database to disk (.i64).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| instance_id | No | Instance id; defaults to the current target |
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 for a write operation. It does not state whether the call blocks until the file is written, whether it overwrites the existing .i64, what happens on failure, or how it differs from save_idb; only the file format is disclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler that puts the action and target first. Nothing is wasted or buried.
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 two-parameter, no-output tool the description is minimally sufficient to call it correctly. However, with no annotations and an obvious same-purpose sibling (save_idb), it should clarify the distinction and the blocking/overwrite behavior an agent needs to plan around.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The phrase 'current (or specified) database' loosely maps to instance_id but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema states.
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 states a specific verb (Save) and resource (IDA database) plus the output artifact (.i64), so the operation is unambiguous on its own. It does not differentiate from the sibling save_idb, which appears to do the same thing, leaving the agent to guess which to call.
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 save versus save_idb, nor any note about prerequisites such as analysis completion or unsaved changes. The only usage hint is the parenthetical '(or specified)', which merely restates the optional instance_id parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.