Convert defined items back to raw bytes at specified addresses. Removes type information to reanalyze or correct binary data.
Undefine item(s) at address(es), converting back to raw bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the end effect ('converting back to raw bytes'), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects on references/function definitions, or whether the operation can be undone.
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 well-formed sentence with the verb and effect front-loaded and zero padding. Appropriately sized for the operation, though it could have afforded one more sentence of behavioral context given the total absence of annotations.
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 mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the consequences of undefining, prerequisite instance routing (only covered in the Chinese schema text), and any conflict/error behavior.
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 50%; the 'items' parameter is well documented in the schema (addr/end/size) and the instance_id has a detailed description. The description adds only 'at address(es)', which marginally maps to the items parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 (undefine), the resource (item(s) at address(es)), and the resulting effect (converting back to raw bytes). This is clear and roughly distinguishes it from the sibling define_code as its inverse, though 'item(s)' remains somewhat vague about what kinds of entities are affected.
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 use this versus define_code, no prerequisites, no conditions. The inverse relationship to define_code is only implicit and left for the agent to infer from the sibling name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.