Define functions in an IDA Pro database at given addresses. IDA infers boundaries unless an explicit end address is provided.
Define functions; IDA infers bounds unless end is provided.
| 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?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuine behavioral trait: IDA infers bounds by default and only uses explicit bounds when 'end' is given. That is a useful default-behavior note, but the description says nothing about permissions, IDB mutation effects, reversibility, or failure behavior for what is a 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 front-loaded sentence pairs the verb+resource first and the behavioral caveat second, with zero filler. Its brevity reflects under-specification rather than verbosity, but the structure itself is efficient.
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, no output schema, and half its parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. It omits what changes in the IDB, what constitutes success, and any prerequisites, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke 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 coverage is 50%, so the description should compensate; it only partially does by referencing the 'end' parameter's effect. The 'addr' parameter and the 'start:end' syntax are left to the schema rather than clarified in the description, adding little beyond structured fields.
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?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('Define functions'), which is clearly distinct from the broader sibling define_code. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as define_code or undefine, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only conditional clause concerns the optional 'end' behavior, not tool selection, leaving the agent to infer all usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.