Saves the active IDA Pro database to disk, optionally to a given path, preserving analysis progress.
Save active IDB to disk, optionally to a provided path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Optional destination path (default: current IDB path) | |
| 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 says the IDB is saved to disk but does not disclose whether this overwrites an existing file, requires a selected instance, is reversible, or what happens on failure – significant gaps for a write operation.
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 filler; the optional path clause is placed after the core action. It is appropriately sized, though very sparse.
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 save tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action but omits prerequisites (active instance) and post-save behavior. It is minimally 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 are already documented in the schema, including the default path behavior. The description's phrase 'optionally to a provided path' merely restates what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb (Save) and resource (active IDB) with a clear target (disk), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, though no sibling shares the save-to-disk behavior.
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 save, whether an active/selected instance is required, or how this relates to cache tools like refresh_cache and cache_status. Usage is only implied by the name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.