Analyzes related functions as a group to deliver per-function summaries, an internal call graph, and shared data for reverse engineering in IDA Pro.
Analyze related functions as a group: per-function summaries, internal call graph, shared data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addrs | Yes | Function addresses (comma-separated or list) | |
| 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 behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether it is expensive/slow on large address sets, any limit on the number of addrs, or whether results are cached. For an analysis tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb-resource pair and an enumeration of return content; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of omitting useful guidance, but structurally sound.
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?
The description does tell the agent what comes back (per-function summaries, internal call graph, shared data), which is helpful without an output schema. However, given no annotations and no usage constraints, the definition is only minimally sufficient for a tool that takes an arbitrary set of addresses.
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 are documented in the schema, including the routing purpose of instance_id. The description adds no format or constraint details (e.g. how many addresses are reasonable, whether addresses must belong to one component), so it lands at the baseline.
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 (related functions as a group), and enumerates the three outputs, which separates it from the singular analyze_function and the bulk analyze_batch. It does not directly name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.
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 when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like analyze_function, analyze_batch, and callgraph in the list, the agent must guess why it would pick this grouped analysis over a single-function analysis or a call-graph query. Only the phrase 'as a group' implies a selection condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.