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

Hex-Rays IDA MCP

by zy723
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List function stack variables

stack_frame
Read-only

Retrieve stack variables for one or more function addresses to inspect local layout, arguments, and offsets during binary analysis.

Instructions

Return stack variables for function address(es).

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": "stack_frame"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addrsYesAddress(es)
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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no mention of how multiple addresses are handled in the result, whether all variables or only declared ones are returned, or anything about the instance_id default behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it earns its brevity partly by omitting information rather than by maximal information density.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with a full-coverage schema and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't explain the address scope (current database vs. instance_id) or the shape of the resulting variable list, but the structured fields carry most of the burden.

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 addrs and instance_id are already documented in the schema. The description's "for function address(es)" only echoes the addrs parameter and adds no syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 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?

States a clear verb ("Return") and resource ("stack variables") with the scoping input ("for function address(es)"). It is distinct from list_globals or declare_stack, though it does not explicitly name the siblings it differs from.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., declare_stack, delete_stack, list_globals), and no prerequisites or context about the current target database. The agent must infer the deployment context entirely.

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