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

Hex-Rays IDA MCP

by zy723
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Extract flag/check constraints

get_function_constraints
Read-only

Extract validation constraints from a function's decompiled pseudocode, identifying flag checks such as length comparisons and constant equality tests to guide reverse engineering.

Instructions

从反编译伪代码中启发式提取 flag/校验约束线索（长度比较、常量 == 等）。

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": {
      "function_address": "<function_address>"
    },
    "name": "get_function_constraints"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instance_idNoOptional database instance id. If omitted, use the current target.
function_addressYes函数地址

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv20261008.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'heuristic', signaling approximate/non-exhaustive results, and lists example patterns, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it omits accuracy caveats or return format.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and examples. No redundant words, though it could be slightly more structured with prerequisites or output hints.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, parameters and safety are covered. However, with no output schema, the description should ideally describe the return format or prerequisites (e.g., requires decompiled function); it leaves these gaps.

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% for both parameters (instance_id and function_address), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, making 3 the baseline.

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 action (extract flag/check constraint clues) and resource (decompiled pseudocode), with concrete examples (length comparisons, constant ==). Does not distinguish itself from sibling analysis tools like analyze_function or trace_data_flow, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must decompile first), and no alternatives among the many sibling tools. The implied usage from 'decompiled pseudocode' is minimal.

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