Hex-Rays IDA MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List functions with filters and pagination

list_funcs

Read-only

Retrieve functions from an IDA binary with glob filters and offset/count pagination. Set count to 0 to return all matching functions.

Instructions

List functions with optional filtering and offset/count pagination.

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": {
      "queries": "<queries>"
    },
    "name": "list_funcs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`queries`	Yes	List functions with optional filtering and pagination
`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

B3.1/5.0

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 — it merely restates that filtering and offset/count pagination exist, which the schema already documents. No mention of result volume, default ordering, or behavior when filters match nothing.

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?

A single lean sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. Efficient, though it is nearly a verbatim restatement of the title rather than adding new substance.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it. Nothing critical is missing, though it provides no extra orientation against the many sibling query tools.

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 the individual fields (filter, offset, count, instance_id) are already fully explained in the schema. The description only echoes pagination/filtering at a high level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured data, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (functions) with a note on filtering/pagination scope. However it does not distinguish itself from siblings like lookup_funcs, func_query, or export_funcs, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools that also query functions. The agent is left to infer that this is the unfiltered-list option versus lookup_funcs or func_query.

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

Deploy Server