Filter and retrieve functions from IDA Pro databases by name, size, regex, type presence, sorting, and pagination for precise reverse-engineering analysis.
Query functions with richer filtering than list_funcs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | Richer function query (size/type/name 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, and it discloses almost nothing: not that this is a read-only query, not pagination semantics (count=0 meaning all, offset), and not the result shape. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant 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 the brevity arguably sacrifices needed detail rather than trimming fat.
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?
The tool has a complex nested anyOf schema (array or single object queries), no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description says nothing about return format or the array-vs-object flexibility. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.
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%, with each nested filter (count, offset, sort_by, min/max_size, name_regex, has_type) individually documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 ("Query functions") and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_funcs by claiming richer filtering. It does not enumerate which filters make it richer, but the schema covers that.
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 phrase "richer filtering than list_funcs" implies when to prefer this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or statement of prerequisites beyond the instance_id note in the schema. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.