Retrieve stack variables for one or more function addresses to analyze function stack frames during reverse engineering.
Return stack variables for function address(es).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addrs | Yes | Address(es) | |
| 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 burden. It says nothing about whether the returned variables include their types/values, whether it requires the function to be analyzed/decompiled first, or how it behaves on unknown addresses. The only routing context (instance_id) comes from the schema, not the description.
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 waste. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but structurally it is clean and readable.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a 'stack variable' result contains and any prerequisites. As written, an agent cannot predict the return shape or required analysis state from the definition alone.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the detailed instance routing note. The description's phrase 'function address(es)' adds a small hint that addrs are function entry points rather than arbitrary addresses, but otherwise the schema does the work; 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 (return stack variables) and scopes it to function addresses, so the agent knows what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like declare_stack or delete_stack, which share the stack/function domain.
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 prerequisite beyond what the schema already states, and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is a read-only inspection tool from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.