Hex-Rays IDA MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete function stack variables

delete_stack

Delete stack variables by name or offset from IDA functions to clean up decompiler output and correct variable definitions.

Instructions

Delete stack variables by name or offset.

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": "delete_stack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`instance_id`	No	Optional database instance id. If omitted, use the current target.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv20261008.0.1Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 does not disclose whether deletions are reversible, what permissions are required, how batch items are processed, or what happens when a name/offset is not found.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately terse for the tool's surface-level purpose.

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?

Although an output schema exists so return values need not be described, the definition is incomplete for a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and 50% schema coverage. It omits usage context, deletion semantics, and required parameter structure.

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 description coverage is 50%, with the required 'items' parameter left undocumented and structured as a confusing anyOf of array or object. The description mentions 'offset', but the schema exposes only 'addr' and 'name', and it does not explain the batch/list semantics.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('stack variables'), and identifies the selectors ('by name or offset'). It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like declare_stack or stack_frame, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternative tools such as declare_stack or stack_frame. The agent must infer that this tool is used to remove existing stack variables.

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

Deploy Server