Extract struct fields from memory at a specified address with automatic type detection, aiding reverse engineering and binary analysis in IDA Pro.
Read struct fields from memory at address; auto-detect type when possible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the auto-detect-type behavior and says nothing about read-only safety, permission/instance requirements, failure modes when the address or type cannot be resolved, or what is returned, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a memory-reading 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and the auto-detect caveat come first. It is appropriately sized, though extremely terse given how much is left unspecified.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more, but it omits the polymorphic nature of 'queries' (array vs single object), the batch semantics, and the return shape. For a tool taking a free-form address and an optional struct type across multiple instances, this is under-specified.
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?
At 50% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It gestures at the 'addr' and optional 'struct' parameters but adds nothing beyond the schema's own field notes, and it never mentions the required 'instance_id' routing parameter whose usage guidance lives only in the schema.
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 ('Read struct fields from memory at address') and adds the auto-detection behavior. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like type_inspect or get_global_value, which also surface typed memory contents.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The description does not tell the agent when reading a struct this way beats calling get_bytes, type_inspect, or search_structs, so selection relies entirely on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.