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

Hex-Rays IDA MCP

by zy723
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Read raw bytes from memory

get_bytes
Read-only

Read bytes from specified memory addresses to inspect binary data, verify patches, and analyze raw memory during reverse engineering.

Instructions

Read bytes from memory addresses

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": {
      "regions": "<regions>"
    },
    "name": "get_bytes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionsYes
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

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior for invalid/unmapped addresses, size limits, or what happens with large reads. It repeats the safety signal rather than extending it.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single four-word sentence with no padding and the core action front-loaded. It is concise but arguably under-specified for a batched memory-read tool, so it earns only a middling score.

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 need no explanation, but the empty description on the required 'regions' parameter and the absence of any usage or failure-mode context leave the definition too thin for a tool that reads arbitrary memory.

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?

The required 'regions' parameter has an empty schema description, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining that it accepts either a single {addr,size} object or an array of them. Only the nested addr/size and instance_id fields are documented, leaving the most important parameter semantics to inference.

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 (Read) and resource (bytes from memory addresses), which separates it from siblings like get_string, get_int, and find_bytes. It is clear but minimal, with no explicit differentiation or scoping detail.

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 get_int, get_string, or find_bytes, nor any mention of prerequisites such as a loaded database or valid address range. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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