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

Hex-Rays IDA MCP

by zy723
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Show open IDA databases

list_databases
Read-only

Shows the IDA databases currently open in the IDA GUI or headless idalib workers, including each instance ID, so you can identify active analyzed binaries.

Instructions

Show the IDA databases (analyzed binaries, .i64/.idb) currently open in the IDA GUI or in headless idalib workers, with their instance ids.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_databases"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNo
instancesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv20261008.0.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that it covers both GUI-opened databases and headless idalib workers, and that instance ids are returned, which is more than the annotation alone provides.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the resource, scope, and distinguishing context efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With zero parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains what is listed and where the databases come from, leaving return-value details to the output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the description's role here is appropriately minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: showing IDA databases currently open in the GUI or headless idalib workers. It also names the concrete artifacts (.i64/.idb) and mentions instance ids, which clearly distinguishes it from open_database and close_database.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word 'currently open' implies the tool's usage context, and sibling names like open_database and close_database make the broader workflow inferable. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives or state any exclusions.

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