Add or update comments at specific addresses in IDA Pro disassembly and decompiler views. Provide an address and comment text to document reverse-engineering findings.
Set comments at addresses (both disassembly and decompiler views)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether setting a comment overwrites an existing one, whether an idb_save is required for persistence, or any side-effect semantics. The one trait it adds, applicability to both views, is thin.
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. Nothing is wasted and the essential purpose is stated immediately.
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, the description is too sparse. It omits overwrite/reversibility behavior, persistence expectations, and any error or routing context that an agent would need before writing data.
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 50%: addr and comment are documented in the schema, and the instance_id field carries a detailed routing description. The description merely restates 'addresses' and 'comments' without adding syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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: 'Set comments at addresses' and clarifies scope ('both disassembly and decompiler views'). Distinguishes it from the sibling append_comments only implicitly through 'set' vs 'append', so it falls short of the explicit sibling differentiation that would earn 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative (append_comments) and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer that 'set' means overwrite while 'append' means add, and must independently discover the instance routing requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.