Retrieve cross-references to structure fields in IDA Pro to trace field usage and understand data flow during reverse engineering.
Get cross-references to structure fields
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | 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. The word 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but nothing is said about return format, whether code and data references are separated, permissions, or side effects. For an unannotated tool, this is only minimal 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with a nontrivial anyOf query parameter and instance routing, so its brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
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, no output schema, and only partial input schema descriptions. The description adds almost no procedural or behavioral context, leaving the agent without enough information about usage, return values, or the required instance_id workflow beyond what the schema's Chinese parameter text provides.
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?
The description does not explain the parameters at all. The schema's instance_id description covers routing and instance_list, and nested struct/field descriptions exist, but the top-level queries parameter—which accepts either a single object or an array—is undocumented in both the description and schema. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the remaining ambiguity.
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 (Get) and resource (cross-references to structure fields), which is clearer than a generic xref query. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like xrefs_to or xref_query, so an agent must infer the difference from the resource phrase alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this tool over xrefs_to, xref_query, or other xref-related siblings, and no prerequisites. The purpose sentence implies usage but provides no explicit selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.