Query local types in IDA Pro using structured filters and projection-friendly output, with pagination and optional member details for binary analysis.
Query local types with structured filters/projection-friendly output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | Type catalog query with filtering, pagination, and optional relationships | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only offers the phrase 'projection-friendly output'. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, describe the output shape, or mention any constraints, so an agent gets little beyond the surface claim.
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 compact sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core verb+resource, though the trailing qualifier is somewhat obscure.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more, especially about return values. It gestures at output via 'projection-friendly output' but leaves the actual response shape and read-only nature unexplained, so it is only minimally complete.
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 already documents every field (kind, filter, count, offset, sort_by, includes). The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas 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?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('Query local types'), which clearly identifies the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings like search_structs, type_inspect, or read_struct, and 'projection-friendly output' is vague jargon rather than a concrete scope statement.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as type_inspect, search_structs, or read_struct. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions that select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.