Convert raw bytes at given addresses into IDA Pro code instructions, turning undefined data into disassembled code for reverse engineering.
Convert bytes to code instruction(s) at address(es).
| 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 burden. It implies a mutation of the IDB (marking bytes as code), but does not disclose side effects, permission/routing requirements, reversibility, or interaction with existing disassembly. This is a significant gap for a database-mutating tool.
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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Efficient, though the minimalism contributes to the coverage gaps elsewhere.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'convert' modifies, whether it changes disassembly, and any routing steps. It leaves the agent guessing about effects and requirements.
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 coverage is 50%; the schema already documents the items subfields (addr, end) and the instance_id routing parameter. The description's 'at address(es)' loosely maps to items but adds no syntax, format, or batching detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles the specifics.
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 (convert) and resource (bytes to code instructions) with address scoping. An agent can tell this marks code at addresses, distinct from define_func which creates a function. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like define_func or undefine, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g., define_func, patch_asm, undefine). The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the surrounding tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.