Requests a specific IDA instance to refresh its local SQLite static cache and wakes the plugin daemon thread, returning immediately without waiting for IDA to become idle.
请求指定 IDA 实例立即刷新其本地 SQLite 静态缓存 (xxx.idb.mcp.sqlite)。实际刷新仍然需要 IDA 进入 idle 状态才会执行，此工具仅唤醒插件端守护线程并立即返回。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses that the call is fire-and-forget (wakes the plugin daemon thread and returns immediately) and that the actual refresh is deferred until IDA reaches idle state. Auth/permission needs and failure modes are not covered, keeping it below 5.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and back-loaded with the important async caveat. No filler, though it could be slightly tighter.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is nearly sufficient: it covers what happens, when the effect actually lands, and that the call returns immediately. It lacks only edge-case behavior (e.g. what happens if the instance never goes idle).
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% and the schema already documents instance_id thoroughly, including the pointer to instance_list. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 ('request the specified IDA instance to refresh its local SQLite static cache') and even names the concrete artifact (xxx.idb.mcp.sqlite). Clear enough to distinguish from instance_list/cache_status, though it never explicitly names the sibling it is not.
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?
Implies usage via the async caveat (refresh only happens once IDA is idle), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and does not mention cache_status as the sibling for inspecting the cache. Guidance is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.