Read signed or unsigned 8/16/32/64-bit integers from IDA Pro addresses by endianness, returning address, type, and value for binary analysis.
从指定地址按类型读整数。支持有符号(i)无符号(u)、8/16/32/64位、大小端(le/be)。返回 addr,ty,value。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | 整数读取: {addr,ty}。ty 格式: i8/u8/i16le/i16be/u32le/u64。例: {addr:'0x401000',ty:'u32le'} | |
| 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 burden. It states the return fields (addr,ty,value) and supported integer types, but says nothing about read-only safety, error handling for invalid addresses, or any side effects. For a read tool the risk is low, yet key behavioral context is still 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?
The description is short and front-loaded: purpose first, then supported types, then return values. Every sentence contributes, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage from output). No wasted words.
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 simple integer-reading tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and return format adequately. However, it omits when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools and does not mention any behavioral caveats. It is minimally sufficient but not rich.
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 the schema already documents both parameters in detail (including type examples and address format). The description repeats type information but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: '从指定地址按类型读整数' (read integer from specified address by type). It distinguishes this from sibling readers like get_bytes or get_string by focusing on typed integer reads, and it names the return fields addr,ty,value. An agent can tell it apart easily.
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_bytes, get_string, or int_convert. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing hints. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.