Inspect named types in IDA Pro databases to retrieve size, kind, declaration, and optional member layout for reverse engineering.
Inspect named types (size/kind/declaration/members).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | Inspect named types and optionally include member layout | |
| 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. While 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, instance routing behavior, or any operational limits. The listed aspects add some value but do not compensate for the missing behavioral disclosure.
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 tight sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource before the parenthetical detail. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has moderate complexity, no output schema, and complete schema descriptions. The description communicates what is inspected but omits any usage context or return-value framing. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters and their nested fields. The description adds only a high-level summary of inspectable aspects, not parameter syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Inspect' and resource 'named types', and enumerates the inspection aspects '(size/kind/declaration/members)'. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like type_query or read_struct, 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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.