Overwrite bytes at specified memory addresses with hex data to modify binary code or data during reverse engineering in an IDA Pro instance.
Patch bytes at memory addresses with hex data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patches | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: no indication that patching mutates the IDB/binary, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or failure modes if an address is invalid.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than earning high marks for 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?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and half its parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. An agent needs reversibility, scope-of-effect, and instance-routing context that is absent.
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 coverage is only 50% and the description adds nothing beyond 'hex data', which is already stated in the schema's data field. It does not clarify the anyOf shape (single patch object vs. array of patches) or how multiple patches are applied.
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 (patch) plus resource (bytes at memory addresses) and format (hex data), so the agent knows it writes raw bytes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling patch_asm, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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 no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The only routing hint lives in the instance_id schema blurb (call instance_list first), not in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.