Apply type declarations or signatures to functions, globals, locals, and stack variables in IDA Pro for accurate binary analysis.
Apply types (function/global/local/stack)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edits | 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 behavioral burden, and it does not state that this mutates the IDB, whether the change is reversible, or that edits are applied to a specific routed instance. 'Apply' weakly implies a write, but nothing about persistence, safety, or side effects is disclosed.
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?
It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, for a tool with a complex nested edits payload, this brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, a one-line description leaves major gaps: the effect on the database, the routing requirement to a specific IDA instance, and the semantics of the edits payload are all unaddressed. The schema's instance_id note is the only substantive usage hint in the whole definition.
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 only 50% and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the parenthetical entity list, which mostly overlaps the schema's own addr description. The anyOf shape of edits, the roles of ty/kind/name/variable/signature, and the difference between array and single-object input are not clarified by the description.
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?
The description gives a verb (Apply) and a resource (types) plus a scoping list (function/global/local/stack), but it is terse and does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like type_apply_batch, declare_type, or make_signature. An agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the type-related tools is the right one here.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. The parenthetical entity list hints at scope but never says under what circumstances an agent should call set_type versus declare_type or type_apply_batch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.