Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hex-Rays IDA MCP

Hex-Rays IDA MCP

by zy723
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Append comments at addresses

append_comments

Append comments to addresses in IDA Pro, automatically skipping duplicate text by default. Simplify annotation during reverse engineering.

Instructions

Append comments at addresses, deduping exact text by default.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "append_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
instance_idNoOptional database instance id. If omitted, use the current target.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv20261008.0.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one trait — deduping exact text by default — which is already present in the schema's dedupe field, but says nothing about persistence, reversibility, permission requirements, or error behavior for a mutating tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key distinguishing behavior front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too spare for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a batched mutating tool with no annotations and an undocumented required 'items' parameter, the description leaves too much unsaid about preconditions, per-item semantics, and effects.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%; the top-level 'items' parameter has an empty description. The description restates address/comment intent and the dedupe default (already in the schema) but adds nothing about scope values (auto|func|line) or instance_id selection.

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?

States a specific verb (append), resource (comments) and target (addresses), and 'append' naturally contrasts with the sibling set_comments. It doesn't name or explicitly differentiate itself from set_comments, but the verb choice alone gives a reasonable signal.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus set_comments, the obvious sibling, nor any prerequisite (e.g., whether a database must be open and saved). The only usage-adjacent statement is the dedupe default, which is behavior rather than when-to-use guidance.

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