Query instructions by mnemonic and operand filters, with scans scoped to functions, segments, or address ranges in IDA Pro.
Query instructions with mnemonic/operand filters and scoped scans.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | Instruction query with mnemonic/operand filters and scoped scan | |
| 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 for a read tool with batching, pagination, and scan limits. It hints that scans are scoped but omits that a scopeless scan requires allow_broad, that count is capped at 5000, and how offset/count interact for paging. Those facts live only in the schema descriptions, so the sentence adds little.
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 wasted words, and the filtering capability is stated first. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with this many options.
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 complex tool with an anyOf batch/object input, many nested filters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves key operational details unaddressed: batch semantics, result shape, pagination behavior, and the allow_broad requirement. It is not complete enough to guide correct invocation on its own.
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 top-level parameters and all nested filter fields are documented in the schema itself, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates the two filter families (mnemonic/operand, scope) but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already supplies.
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 names a specific verb and resource (query instructions) plus the two filtering axes (mnemonic/operand filters, scoped scans). An agent can tell it is a filtered instruction search rather than a plain linear listing. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings like disasm, find_bytes, or func_query, so it stops short of 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over disasm/find_bytes/func_query, and no note about the scopeless-scan constraint that gates broad searches. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.