Lists all connected IDA/Hopper instances without loading an IDB, returning instance ID, name, binary path, IDB path, and base address.
列出所有已连接的 IDA/Hopper 实例。无需加载 IDB。返回 instance_id,name,binary_path,idb_path,base_addr。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that no IDB load is required, which is a real workflow constraint, but it never explicitly states that this is a safe read-only operation with no side effects. The returned field list duplicates what the output schema already provides.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: one sentence states the action and scope, followed by a short prerequisite note and return-field list. No words are wasted.
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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the return values and basic behavior are covered. However, the description does not help an agent choose between this tool and the similarly named sibling 'list_instances', leaving a significant selection gap given the crowded tool namespace.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gap, making a baseline of 4 appropriate.
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 ('列出') and resource ('已连接的 IDA/Hopper 实例') with the scope '所有'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'list_instances', which appears to serve the same purpose.
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 phrase '无需加载 IDB' implies a lightweight, always-available usage context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like list_instances, instance_info, or select_instance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.