Retrieve global variables from an IDA Pro database with glob filters and offset/count pagination for targeted binary analysis.
列出全局变量。支持 glob 过滤、分页。'0:20'=offset:count（列表索引，非地址）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | 查询: glob'g_'、分页'0:20'(offset:count 列表索引，非地址)、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 carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies that '0:20' means offset:count as list indices, not addresses, which prevents a real misuse. However it does not disclose the read-only/no-mutation nature, rate limits, or return shape, leaving a gap for an annotation-free 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?
Extremely tight and front-loaded: purpose first, then capabilities, then the one clarifying note about pagination semantics. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 read/list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the core operations (glob + pagination). With no annotations, a bit more on the read-only nature and result format would make it fully self-contained.
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 schema already documents filter/offset/count and instance_id thoroughly. The description mirrors the '0:20' offset:count syntax but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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+resource ('列出全局变量' / list global variables) and adds capability scope (glob filtering, pagination). It is distinguishable from get_global_value (single value retrieval) in practice, but the description does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it falls 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?
Usage is only implied: it says glob filtering and pagination are supported but never states when to use this tool vs get_global_value or the other *_query/list_* siblings, nor any exclusions. Adequate for a simple listing tool but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.