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

Hex-Rays IDA MCP

by zy723
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Query local types with filters

type_query
Read-only

Query local types in IDA using structured filters, pagination, sorting, and optional declaration or member details for reverse engineering.

Instructions

Query local types with structured filters/projection-friendly output.

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": "type_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queriesYesType catalog query with filtering, pagination, and optional relationships
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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a modest amount of behavioral context ('structured filters', 'projection-friendly output') that hints at read-only, filterable, projection-style queries, but says nothing about pagination limits, how the array form batches multiple queries, or the effect of omitting instance_id.

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 filler or repetition. It is efficient, though for a tool with an anyOf array-or-object schema and a claimed filter/projection model it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and readOnlyHint covers safety. However, for a tool whose schema accepts either a single query object or an array of them, the description never mentions batch-query capability or the instance_id default, and offers no routing among 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 schema already documents kind, filter, count, offset, sort_by, include_decl, include_members, and include_relationships. The description's 'structured filters/projection-friendly output' merely alludes to those concepts without adding syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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+resource ('Query local types') and adds that it works over structured filters, so an agent knows it targets the type catalog rather than functions or xrefs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like type_inspect, search_structs, enum_upsert, or entity_query, which prevents a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. With ~80 sibling tools including several type-related ones (type_inspect, search_structs, read_struct, enum_upsert), the description gives no basis for choosing this one over them, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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