Create stack variables from typed stack declarations to define function stack layouts in IDA Pro. Use for reverse engineering to annotate local variables and offsets.
Create stack variables from typed stack declarations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| 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 implies a mutation ('create') but says nothing about permissions, whether existing declarations are overwritten, reversibility, error behavior, or that requests are routed to a specific IDA instance. That is thin for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.
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 no waste, which is good structure. But it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, packing in too little for a mutation tool with two required parameters.
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 and no annotations, with 50% parameter coverage and a bare one-line description. For a tool that mutates a database's stack layout, the agent lacks enough context on scope, routing, and side effects to call 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 50%: the nested item fields (addr, offset, name, ty) are documented in the schema, and instance_id carries a detailed routing note. The top-level description adds nothing about the 'items' shape, batch/Single item acceptance (anyOf), or instance_id routing, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered half.
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 and resource: 'Create stack variables' from 'typed stack declarations'. An agent understands the core action (defining stack variables on a function). However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like stack_frame, delete_stack, or set_type, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as stack_frame or delete_stack. The agent gets no signal about which stack-manipulation tool to pick or in what context this one applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.