Return the unique list of functions called by a given function in IDA Pro, with an optional limit.
Return unique callees per function, capped by limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addrs | Yes | 函数地址。该函数内调用的目标列表。支持 hex、符号名、逗号分隔。 | |
| limit | No | Max callees per function (default: 200, max: 500) | |
| 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 discloses that results are unique and capped, but omits read-only safety, permission requirements, mutation behavior, error handling, and other operational traits.
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. Appropriately sized for a simple query tool.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify return structure or ordering. It states the return content ('unique callees per function') but lacks detail about result format or pagination beyond the limit cap.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds the notion of 'unique callees' but the parameters (addrs, limit, instance_id) are already fully documented in the schema.
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 ('Return') and resource ('unique callees per function'), plus the cap behavior. It's clear what it does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like callgraph or xrefs_to.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no preconditions beyond what the schema already states (instance_id routing). An agent is left to infer when this tool is preferable to callgraph or xrefs_to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.