Find local structs or unions by name pattern in a specific IDA Pro database instance, using glob or substring filters to locate relevant types.
Search local structs/unions by name pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | Yes | Case-insensitive search. Use * or ? for glob (e.g. FILE*, *_t). Else substring. | |
| 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 implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about result limits, whether matches include members or just names, or how results are ordered/returned.
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. It is efficient, though very terse given the amount of behavioral information it omits.
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 two-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate on scope but silent on return shape and how matches are presented. Minimum viable, not complete.
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%: the filter glob/substring semantics and the instance_id routing note are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (Search), resource (structs/unions), and scope qualifier (local, by name pattern), which distinguishes it from read_struct, type_query, and entity_query. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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, no conditions that select this tool over read_struct/type_query/find, and no prerequisites beyond what the schema already states. 'local' hints at scope but does not route the agent among alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.