List a binary's import table to identify dynamically linked APIs and modules. Retrieve addresses, imported names, and module names for reverse engineering.
列出导入表。返回 addr, imported_name, module。用于查动态链接/API 调用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | 返回数量，0 表示全部 | |
| offset | Yes | 起始索引，从 0 开始 | |
| 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 helpfully discloses the return fields (addr, imported_name, module) even though no output schema exists, and the read-only nature is implied by '列出'. It says nothing about pagination interactions between count/offset or instance-routing behavior, leaving real gaps for an unannotated tool.
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, densely packed sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the return fields and use case follow immediately, so nothing needs trimming.
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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and documented return fields, this is nearly complete. The one missing piece is disambiguation from the similarly named `imports_query` sibling, which matters given the crowded sibling list.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema (including count=0 meaning all, offset origin, and the instance_id routing note). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 「列出导入表」 (list the import table), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool `imports_query`, which an agent could easily confuse it with. Clear purpose, but no sibling differentiation.
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?
「用于查动态链接/API 调用」 gives an implied use case (inspecting dynamic linking / API calls) but never states when to prefer this tool over the near-named `imports_query` sibling, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.