Apply multiple type edits to an IDA Pro database in one batch and return aggregate status for all changes.
Apply multiple type edits and return aggregate status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| batch | Yes | Batch type edits with optional stop_on_error behavior | |
| 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 hints at 'aggregate status', but for a mutating batch operation it says nothing about partial-failure semantics beyond the schema's stop_on_error field, whether edits are reversible, or any permission/routing requirements beyond what instance_id's schema text already states.
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 zero padding. It is efficient, though for a tool with a deeply nested batch schema it is arguably under-specified rather than richly concise.
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 batch mutation with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and instance routing requirements, one sentence is not enough. Nothing explains failure handling across the batch, edit ordering, or what 'aggregate status' actually reports.
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%, with every nested edit field (ty, addr, kind, name, variable, signature) and stop_on_error documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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+resource ('apply type edits') with the batch scope made explicit by 'multiple' and 'aggregate status', which distinguishes it from single-edit siblings like set_type and declare_type. It does not name a sibling directly, but the batching purpose is clear.
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 guidance on when to prefer this over set_type/declare_type/infer_types, no prerequisites stated, and no note on when a single-edit call would be better. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.