wait_for_analysisPause IDA Pro workflows until auto-analysis finishes, ensuring functions, xrefs, and strings are ready before querying or modifying a binary.
Block until IDA auto-analysis (functions, xrefs, strings) completes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it usefully discloses the key behavioral trait that this is a blocking/synchronous call. However, it says nothing about timeout semantics, what happens on timeout, whether the call is idempotent, or what completion guarantees it provides, leaving real gaps for a call with a dedicated timeout parameter.
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 waste; the core behavior (blocking) and its target are stated immediately.
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?
No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the purpose is simple. Still, for a blocking call with a user-facing timeout, the description omits timeout behavior and failure modes, leaving an agent without the semantics it needs to invoke 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% and both parameters (timeout, instance_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb ('Block until') plus resource ('IDA auto-analysis') with clarifying examples of what analysis covers (functions, xrefs, strings). An agent immediately knows this is a synchronization tool. It does not reference any sibling, but no other tool shares this purpose, so differentiation is implicit.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this before analysis-dependent tools (list_functions, xrefs_to, etc.). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.