Skip to main content
Glama

run_ida_command_filebased

Execute IDA Pro scripts from files to automate reverse engineering tasks, saving output for analysis.

Instructions

(FOR IDE USAGE) Execute an IDA Pro Script (IdaPython, Version IDA 8.3)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scriptPathYesabsolute Path to the script file to execute
outputPathNoabsolute Path to save the scripts output to

Implementation Reference

  • index.ts:218-235 (registration)
    Registration of the 'run_ida_command_filebased' tool in the ListToolsRequestHandler, including name, description, and input schema definition.
    {
        name: 'run_ida_command_filebased',
        description: '(FOR IDE USAGE) Execute an IDA Pro Script (IdaPython, Version IDA 8.3)',
        inputSchema: {
            type: 'object',
            properties: {
                scriptPath: {
                    type: 'string',
                    description: 'absolute Path to the script file to execute',
                },
                outputPath: {
                    type: 'string',
                    description: 'absolute Path to save the scripts output to',
                },
            },
            required: ['scriptPath'],
        },
    },
  • TypeScript interface defining the expected input parameters for the run_ida_command_filebased tool.
    interface RunIdaCommandArgs {
        scriptPath: string;
        outputPath?: string;
    }
  • Core helper function in IDARemoteClient class that executes an IDA Pro script from a given file path by posting to the remote server's /executeByPath endpoint.
    async executeScriptByPath(path: string, logHTTP = false): Promise<ExecuteResponse> {
    
        return this.post<ExecuteResponse>('/executeByPath', { path });
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions execution of a script but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions or authentication are needed, how errors are handled, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads key information (IDE usage, execution, script type, version). Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted text, making it efficient and well-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of executing scripts in a tool like IDA Pro, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely involves file I/O and script execution, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (scriptPath and outputPath). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as file format requirements or output specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Execute') and resource ('an IDA Pro Script'), specifying it's for IDA 8.3 with IdaPython. It distinguishes from sibling 'run_ida_command' by indicating file-based execution, though not explicitly contrasting. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about the sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context with '(FOR IDE USAGE)', suggesting it's intended for IDE environments, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_ida_command' or other analysis tools. No when-not scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat vague.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fdrechsler/mcp-server-idapro'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server