Get details for a given IDA Pro instance using its instance_id from instance_list; returns binary_path, idb_path, base_addr, and processor.
获取指定实例详情。instance_id 来自 instance_list。返回 binary_path,idb_path,base_addr,processor 等。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, but it only implies a safe read via the verb '获取' (get). It does not state read-only nature, error behavior for unknown IDs, or whether the instance must be selected first. For a low-risk single-parameter getter this is adequate but thin.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the parameter source, then the return fields. No filler and nothing redundant in structure.
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?
With an output schema present, the enumerated return fields are somewhat redundant but harmless. For a single-required-parameter read tool with no annotations, the description covers input provenance and output nature, leaving only minor gaps such as error handling.
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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does so by explaining the provenance of instance_id ('来自 instance_list'), which is genuinely useful semantics beyond the bare string type. With only one obvious parameter, this is close to sufficient.
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 (get details of a specified instance) and implicitly contrasts with the sibling listing tool by naming instance_list as the source of the ID. It is clear, though it does not explicitly state what makes it distinct from other retrieval tools like list_funcs or imports.
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 implied usage guidance by stating that instance_id comes from instance_list, which tells the agent the prerequisite step. However, it gives no when-not guidance, no mention of what happens with an invalid or stale ID, and no alternatives for other instance-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.