Create or extend local enums in IDA Pro idempotently, adding or updating members without destructive replacement.
Create or extend local enums in an idempotent way.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | Create enums if missing and upsert enum members without destructive replacement | |
| 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, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses idempotency and non-destructive member upsert (reinforced by the schema's 'without destructive replacement'), but says nothing about permissions, how conflicting member values are resolved, or what happens to members omitted from the call.
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 filler, and the idempotency guarantee is stated immediately. It is arguably too terse given this is a mutating operation, but it is not padded.
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 an upsert tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves real gaps: nothing about failure modes, partial-failure behavior, or what the result reports. The rich schema covers inputs well, but the operational semantics of the write remain underspecified.
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 every parameter is documented nominally (queries, name, members, bitfield, instance_id). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (create/extend), resource (local enums), and a behavior (idempotent). 'Local enums' scopes it apart from general type tools like declare_type or set_type, but it never names a sibling, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.
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 guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling type-management tools (declare_type, set_type, type_apply_batch) that an agent would naturally weigh against this one. The only routing hint is in the instance_id schema text, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.