set_typeApplies function, global, local, or stack types to addresses in IDA, enabling reverse engineers to define variable and function signatures for accurate decompilation.
Apply types (function/global/local/stack)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edits | Yes | ||
| instance_id | No | Optional database instance id. If omitted, use the current target. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v20261008.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about mutation semantics, whether applied types overwrite existing ones, required database state, or reversibility. For a write operation of this kind, that is a substantial gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, which is good, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the bare action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and a half-documented parameter set, the description is too thin to let an agent call it correctly and safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: the nested fields (ty, addr, kind, name, variable, signature) are documented in the schema, but the top-level "edits" parameter has an empty description and there is no explanation of the single-object vs array shape. The description's mention of entity kinds marginally reinforces the addr/kind semantics but adds little beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a verb ("Apply") and a resource ("types") and lists the entity classes it targets (function/global/local/stack), so the basic action is inferable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like type_apply_batch, declare_type, or infer_types, leaving the agent to guess which one is appropriate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus type_apply_batch, declare_type, or infer_types, and no prerequisites such as needing an open database or a resolved address. The parenthetical entity list hints at scope but does not constitute usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.