Writes integer values to memory addresses in an IDA Pro database. Supports typed writes for patching binaries during reverse engineering.
Write integer values to memory addresses
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Integer write requests (ty, addr, value). value is a string; supports 0x.. and negatives | |
| 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 disclosure burden for a mutation tool. It says 'write' but never covers reversibility, permission/routing requirements, batch semantics, or failure behavior, leaving significant gaps.
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 wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified for a write tool rather than overly verbose.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, a one-line description is thin. It omits batch behavior, error/partial-write semantics, and any safety context an agent would need to invoke it confidently.
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 `items`, `ty`, `addr`, `value`, and `instance_id` are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that baseline, so a 3 is warranted.
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 ('Write') and resource ('integer values to memory addresses'), which is clear enough to act on. However it doesn't distinguish itself from neighbors like `patch` or note that it is the write counterpart to sibling `get_int`, and it omits that it accepts a batch of writes.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as `patch`, `set_type`, or `get_int`. Nothing states prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.