Retrieve function lists from an IDA Pro database with glob filtering and pagination, using offset and count to page through results.
列出函数。支持 glob 过滤、分页。'0:50'=offset:count（列表索引，非地址）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | 查询: glob过滤'main'、分页简写'0:50'(表示从第0个起取50个，非地址范围)、对象{filter,offset,count}。 | |
| 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 must carry behavioural disclosure. It adds useful pagination semantics and clarifies that '0:50' is a list index rather than an address range, but it does not state read-only safety, result ordering, or return format.
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 three terse sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then key syntax. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetitive or filler content.
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 2-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and pagination shorthand. It is not fully complete because it omits guidance on choosing among sibling function-querying tools and provides no safety or return-shape context, which matters since no annotations exist.
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 the baseline is 3 even though the description mentions filter and pagination. The description mostly repeats the schema's own field explanations and adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 and resource ('列出函数') and notes glob filtering and pagination. It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as func_query, lookup_funcs, or export_funcs, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?
The description implies usage for glob filtering and pagination, giving an agent some context. However, it does not name alternatives or state when to use this tool instead of related function-querying siblings, leaving selection guidance 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.