Batch modify function, global, local, and stack variable names in IDA Pro. Validates changes without applying them when dry_run is set.
批量重命名: 函数、全局变量、局部变量、栈变量。支持 dry_run 等选项。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| batch | Yes | 批量重命名: 函数、全局变量、局部变量、栈变量。batch 可为空{}。格式: {func:[{addr,name}], data:[{old,new}], ...} | |
| 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that renames are batchable and that dry_run/options exist, but says nothing about whether renames persist to the database, permission/auth needs, conflict or partial-failure behavior, or what a rename of an already-named entity does. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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 that names the scope of the operation plus a note on available options. No filler, though the '等选项' phrasing is slightly vague and the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true concision.
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?
The nested schema is fully annotated and there is no output schema to explain, so parameter-level completeness is adequate. However, for an un-annotated mutation tool the description omits behavioral context (persistence, auth, failure semantics) that an agent would need to use it safely, leaving a real gap.
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 the schema already documents batch sub-keys (func/data/local/stack), dry_run, stop_on_error and allow_overwrite. The description adds little beyond restating the rename categories, 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 (batch rename) plus the resources it operates on (functions, global/local/stack variables), matching the schema categories. Clear enough for an agent to know this is the symbol-renaming tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent symbol tools like define_func or set_type.
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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The only usage hint is the existence of a 'dry_run' option, which is offered rather than explained as a recommended first step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.