Read C or wide-character strings identified by IDA from one or more addresses, returning each address and value or an error when no string exists.
从地址读取 IDA 识别的字符串(C/宽字符)。返回 addr,value。若该址无字符串则 error。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addrs | Yes | 地址，支持 hex/十进制/逗号分隔。例: '0x403000' 或 '0x403000, 0x403010' | |
| 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; it usefully discloses that C and wide-char strings are both handled and that a missing string yields an error. However, it omits read length/truncation limits, encoding details, and any auth or rate considerations, leaving real behavioral gaps.
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 compact sentence front-loads the action, then the return shape, then the error case – no wasted words. It is efficient, though very terse for a tool that could benefit from a touch more routing context.
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 tool with no output schema, the description does state the return values (addr, value), which is helpful. It leaves the error payload format and the string-length behavior unspecified, so it is adequate rather than complete.
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 (addrs with hex/decimal/comma-separated syntax, and instance_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 and resource: read the IDA-recognized string (C/wide char) at an address. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_bytes, get_int, and get_global_value. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to route against, so not a 5.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of when to prefer this over get_bytes or get_int, nor any prerequisite beyond the schema's instance_id note. The error-on-missing-string note is behavioral, not a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.