Profile functions in IDA Pro by address, name, or filter to get summary metrics and optional sampled call/callee/string/constant details.
Profile functions with summary metrics and optional sampled details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | Function profiling query (supports name/address filters + pagination) | |
| 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 hints at output shape (summary metrics, sampled details) but says nothing about read-only nature, cost/performance of profiling multiple functions, sampling behavior, or limits. For a profiling tool over potentially many functions, this is a notable gap.
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. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly responsible for the gaps in other dimensions.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a rich nested query parameter, the description should do more to explain return contents and sampling. As written it is too thin for the complexity of the tool and its ambiguous positioning among many function-related siblings.
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 the queries object documents every field (addr, filter, sort_by, include_lists, etc.), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already spells out.
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 (profile) and resource (functions) plus a high-level sense of the output (summary metrics + sampled details). However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like analyze_function, func_query, or list_funcs, leaving the agent unclear on when this profiling view is preferred.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus analyze_function, func_query, or list_funcs. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided. The only usage-related clue is embedded in the instance_id schema description, not the tool description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.