Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IDA Script MCP

IDA Script MCP

by SuZiXunYue
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_ida_database_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve key information from an IDA Pro database, such as architecture and file type, to support AI-driven binary analysis and reverse engineering.

Instructions

Get information about an IDA database.

Args: instance_id: Target IDA instance ID (optional, uses default if not specified).

Returns: str: JSON-formatted string with database information.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_ida_database_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instance_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only adds that the result is a JSON-formatted string of database information, which is modest added context beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by compact Args/Returns blocks with no filler. The Args/Returns scaffolding is boilerplate but harmless and short.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be spelled out, and the single optional parameter is explained. What remains missing is any hint of what 'database information' contains or how it relates to sibling lookup tools, leaving the agent to infer the tool's niche.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema itself says nothing about instance_id beyond its type. The description compensates by explaining it is optional and that a default instance is used when omitted, which is the key semantic an agent needs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb and resource ('Get information about an IDA database'), which is enough to know the general intent. However, 'information' is vague and the description does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like list_ida_instances or check_ida_connection, so the agent must guess which metadata call to make.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage note is that instance_id is optional and falls back to a default. There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_ida_instances or check_ida_connection, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools