Read global variable values in IDA Pro by address or symbol name. Automatically detects hex addresses vs names, requiring IDA-defined global types.
按地址或符号名读取全局变量值。自动识别 hex 地址 vs 名称。需 IDA 已定义该全局类型。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | 全局变量地址或名称。例: '0x403000'、'globalVar'、'isDemoVersion'。按类型解析返回值。 | |
| 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 but does disclose two meaningful behaviors: automatic hex-vs-name detection and the requirement that IDA already defines the global type. It does not say what happens when the type is undefined (error vs raw read) or how the value is rendered, so key failure behavior is missing.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences covering purpose, input handling, and prerequisite with zero filler; the core action is stated first.
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 2-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and a prerequisite but omits return-value shape and error behavior, which the absent output schema would otherwise have to carry.
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%, so both parameters are already documented with examples in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's auto-detection note adds marginal interpretation guidance for `queries` but no new syntax or constraint beyond what the schema shows.
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+resource (read a global variable's value) plus the two accepted input forms. It is clearly distinguishable from list_globals (enumeration) and patch/put_int (mutation), though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
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?
Provides one real prerequisite – the global's type must already be defined in the IDA database – which is useful usage context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_int/get_bytes for reading a global, so the when-to-use decision is left implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.