Query IDA cross-references with direction/type filters and pagination to trace code/data usage and navigate binary relationships.
Query xrefs with direction/type filters and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | Generic xref query with direction/type filters and pagination | |
| 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 implies a read (query), but omits that the 'queries' param accepts a batch of addresses, that instance_id must resolve to a live IDA instance, or any hint about result shape/defaults beyond 'pagination'.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but nothing is wasted.
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 accepts a nested batch of query objects with nine sub-fields each and requires an instance_id that must be routed to a specific IDA instance. The description mentions none of this — no batch semantics, no instance routing, no return behavior. Given the complexity and absence of annotations, it is under-specified.
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 all parameters (addr, count, direction, xref_type, offset, sort_by, dedup, descending, include_fn, instance_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline at this coverage level.
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 ('Query') and resource ('xrefs') plus the filter dimensions and pagination support. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like xrefs_to, xrefs_to_field, or find_xref_signatures, which is the main thing an agent needs to disambiguate.
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 when-to-use guidance at all. Given at least three closely related xref tools in the sibling list, the description should say when this multi-query/batch variant is preferred over xrefs_to. Nothing indicates context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.