Performs comprehensive analysis on multiple functions in IDA Pro, returning selectable data such as disassembly, decompilation, and cross-references.
Run comprehensive analysis over one or more target functions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | Comprehensive per-function analysis with selectable sections | |
| instance_id | Yes | 必须提供的 instance_id（或 client_id），用于将请求精确路由到特定的 IDA 实例。请先调用 instance_list 查看并选择合适的客户端 ID。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Comprehensive analysis' is vague: it does not state what is returned, defaults for the many include_* flags, whether it is read-only, or any cost/latency characteristics of batching.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope. It is efficient, though for a tool with such a rich option set it is arguably too terse to be fully useful.
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 complex batch tool with a large per-query option schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is not sufficient. It omits what the analysis yields, how results are aggregated across queries, and defaults for the include_* section flags.
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 every parameter (including the include_* flags and instance_id routing guidance) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (analyze) and resource (target functions), and 'one or more' signals a batch variant of the per-function analysis. It does not name analyze_function explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Only 'one or more target functions' hints at when to use this over analyze_function; there are no explicit when/when-not conditions, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.