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

Hex-Rays IDA MCP

by zy723
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Infer types at addresses

infer_types
Read-only

Infers and applies likely data types at target addresses, helping reverse engineers reconstruct type information in IDA.

Instructions

Infer and apply likely types at target 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": {
      "addrs": "<addrs>"
    },
    "name": "infer_types"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addrsYesAddresses to infer types for
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
Behavior1/5

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

The description says 'apply likely types', which implies a mutating operation that changes the database's type information. However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, creating a direct contradiction about whether side effects occur. The description does not clarify the discrepancy or describe what is modified.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is compact but under-specified, which is reflected in other dimensions.

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?

For a tool that appears to apply type changes, the description omits critical context: what inferred types look like, whether existing types are overwritten, and why a readOnly annotation coexists with 'apply'. Although an output schema exists, the mutation-vs-readOnly ambiguity leaves the agent without enough behavioral information.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The description only restates 'target addresses' for addrs and says nothing about instance_id; with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Infer and apply likely types at target addresses.' It is clear what the tool does at a high level, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as set_type, type_apply_batch, or declare_type.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives that also set or query types. It also omits prerequisites or conditions such as whether addresses must belong to a function or stack frame.

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