Locate functions by address or name in IDA Pro. Returns addresses, names, and sizes, with batch query support.
按地址或名称查找函数。输入: 地址(0x401000/sub_401000)或符号名(main,start)。输出: addr,name,size。支持批量。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | 函数地址或名称。支持: 字符串'0x401000'、逗号分隔'main, start'、数组['0x401000','main']、或对象数组[{'addr':'0x401000'}]。 | |
| 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 does disclose useful behavior: accepted input forms and the exact output fields (addr, name, size), plus batch support. However it says nothing about permissions, instance routing requirements, or error behavior on a miss.
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 four-clause structure: purpose, input formats, output fields, batch note. Front-loaded with the core action and no wasted sentences.
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 only two required params and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields (addr, name, size) and noting batch support. The instance_id routing requirement is left to the schema, which is acceptable given its detailed description there.
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 parameters (queries accepts string/comma-list/array/object forms, instance_id routing) are fully documented in the schema. The description's input examples largely mirror the schema, adding little beyond the baseline.
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 in '按地址或名称查找函数' (look up functions by address or name), which is clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_funcs or func_query, so an agent must infer the difference between a targeted lookup and a listing/query.
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 'input: address or symbol name' phrasing implies when the tool is applicable (you already have an identifier), but it names no alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools list_funcs/func_query exist and are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.