Retrieves cross-references to specified addresses in an IDA Pro database, enabling reverse engineers to trace code and data usage.
获取交叉引用(引用的目标地址)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addrs | Yes | 目标地址。支持 hex、符号名、逗号分隔。例: '0x401000'、'main, 0x402000' | |
| limit | No | Max xrefs per address (default: 100, max: 1000) | |
| 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 behavioral burden. It only restates the basic operation and says nothing about read-only safety, required permissions, pagination/limit behavior, error conditions, or what the operation returns.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, for an xref tool with no annotations and no output schema, it is under-specified rather than optimally 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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining direction of the xref lookup, return shape, and any behavioral constraints. It does not do so, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer from the schema and sibling names alone.
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 parameters are already well documented in the schema, including the required instance_id routing prerequisite and the limit default/max. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.
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 gives a verb and resource ("获取交叉引用" / get cross-references), but the parenthetical "引用的目标地址" is ambiguous about direction: it does not clearly state whether the input addresses are the referencing sources or the referenced targets. It also does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like xref_query or xrefs_to_field.
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 exclusions, and no alternatives. It does not mention that this should be preferred over or used instead of xref_query, xrefs_to_field, or other xref-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.