Frida Game Hacking MCP

by 0xhackerfren

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists, such as hook_function, hook_native_function, and intercept_module_function, which all handle function hooking with slight variations. Similarly, scan_value, scan_pattern, scan_next, scan_changed, and scan_unchanged are all related to memory scanning, which could cause confusion. However, descriptions help differentiate them, and overall, the tool set is well-organized with clear categories.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern throughout, with clear verb_noun structures (e.g., attach, detach, list_processes, read_memory). There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to navigate. This consistency aids in understanding and using the tools effectively.
Tool Count3/5
With 42 tools, the count is high, bordering on heavy for a game hacking server. While the domain is broad, covering process management, memory operations, hooking, scanning, and UI interactions, it may overwhelm users or agents. A more streamlined set could improve usability without sacrificing functionality, as some tools are highly specialized.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for game hacking, including process attachment/detachment, memory reading/writing, function hooking, scanning, breakpoints, script management, and UI controls. There are no obvious gaps; it supports full CRUD-like operations for hooks, scripts, and scans, and includes utilities like documentation and capability listing, ensuring agents can handle complex workflows without dead ends.
Average 3.3/5 across 42 of 42 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Returns: Detach status' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this stops debugging, releases memory, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a tool with potential system impact, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a returns statement. It's efficient with two sentences, though the returns line could be more informative. No wasted words, but slightly under-specified.
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?
Given 0 parameters and an output schema exists (which should detail return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool that likely interacts with processes (implied by sibling 'attach'), more context on effects and usage would improve completeness, especially without annotations.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Detach from the current process' which provides a clear verb ('detach') and resource ('current process'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'detach' entails operationally. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'resume' or 'unhook_function' which might have related functionality in debugging contexts.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'resume' (which might continue execution) or 'attach' (which might connect to a process), the description lacks context about when detaching is appropriate, such as after debugging or to release resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Returns: Documentation for the requested topic' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like format (text, HTML, structured data), size limits, error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a clear structure with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections, making it easy to parse. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists, and the purpose statement could be more specific to improve efficiency.
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?
Given the tool has 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the parameter well but lacks behavioral details (e.g., what 'documentation' entails, error cases). The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on usage and system integration would improve completeness.
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?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (only title 'Topic'), but the description specifies 'topic: Documentation topic (general, memory, hooking, scanning, examples)', providing concrete examples of valid values. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't explain the semantics of each topic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get documentation and usage examples' which clarifies its purpose as a retrieval function. However, it doesn't specify what system or domain the documentation covers (e.g., debugging, reverse engineering based on sibling tools), nor does it differentiate from potential documentation-related siblings (none exist in the list). The purpose is clear but lacks domain context.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or context for accessing documentation. Given the sibling tools include various debugging and analysis functions, there's no indication of how this tool fits into workflows or when it's preferred over other information-gathering tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions the return format ('List of exports with name and address') but doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error conditions, or how the filtering works. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, though the parameter explanations could be more informative given the 0% schema coverage.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks sufficient parameter details and behavioral context for a tool that interacts with module exports.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic meaning by explaining 'module_name' as 'Name of the module' and 'filter_name' as 'Optional filter for export names', but doesn't elaborate on format expectations, constraints, or examples. This provides minimal compensation for the schema gap.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'exports from a module', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_module_imports' by focusing on exports rather than imports, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other export-related tools (none exist in the sibling list).
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_module_info' or 'resolve_symbol' that might provide overlapping functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Hook a function' and returns 'Hook status with resolved address,' implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this requires elevated permissions, if it's destructive to process stability, potential side effects (e.g., crashes), rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe use.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured for clarity, but the 'Returns' section could be more detailed. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter list more seamlessly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (function hooking with JavaScript callbacks), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks critical behavioral details (e.g., safety, permissions) and doesn't fully leverage the output schema to explain return values in depth, leaving room for improvement in context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief examples (e.g., 'game.dll') and clarifies that 'on_enter' and 'on_leave' are JavaScript, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints, such as valid module formats or JavaScript execution context, leaving gaps in understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Hook a function by module and function name.' It specifies the verb ('hook') and resource ('function'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'hook_function' and 'hook_native_function' by specifying 'by module and function name.' However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'replace_function' which might have overlapping functionality.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hook_function' or 'replace_function.' It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the module must be loaded or the process attached, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool replaces a function to return a specific value, implying a mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, potential side effects on the system, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies function 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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first followed by parameter explanations. It avoids unnecessary details, though the 'Returns' section could be more informative. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (function replacement with potential system impact), no annotations, and an output schema that only indicates 'Replacement status', the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed return information. The output schema helps, but more is needed for safe and effective use.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'address' as the 'Address of function to replace' and 'return_value' as the 'Value to return', which clarifies the parameters beyond their titles. However, it doesn't specify formats (e.g., address syntax) or constraints, leaving some ambiguity. This partial compensation justifies a baseline score.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Replace a function to always return a specific value.' It specifies the verb ('replace') and resource ('function'), and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'hook_function' or 'intercept_module_function', the focus on replacement with a fixed return value is specific enough for clarity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the function must be hooked or attached first, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'hook_function' or 'unhook_function' that might be related. This omission leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'narrow scan results' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: what type of scan it operates on (memory, process, etc.), whether it modifies existing data or creates new results, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The return value description is minimal but doesn't explain what 'remaining addresses' means contextually.
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?
The description is appropriately concise with three sentences: purpose, parameter explanation, and return value. Each sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).
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?
Given 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the parameter's role and return type, but lacks context about scan types, prerequisites, and error handling. For a tool in a debugging/memory scanning context with many siblings, more operational details would help.
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?
With 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: it explains that 'value' is a 'new value to search for'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic title 'Value'. However, it doesn't specify format constraints or examples (e.g., numeric vs. string values), leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'narrow scan results with new value', which provides a vague purpose (verb+resource). It doesn't specify what type of scan (memory? process? module?) or what 'narrow' means operationally. Compared to siblings like 'scan_value', 'scan_pattern', 'scan_changed', and 'scan_unchanged', it lacks clear differentiation beyond implying it's a follow-up operation.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for narrowing existing scan results, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must have an active scan from another tool) or when to choose it over similar tools like 'scan_value' or 'get_scan_results'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool sets a breakpoint and returns status, but fails to explain critical details like whether it requires an active debug session, if it's destructive (modifies memory), potential side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent invocation.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by brief parameter and return explanations. It's efficient with no wasted words, though the structure is basic without explicit sections beyond 'Args' and 'Returns'.
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?
Given the complexity (a debugging tool with potential side effects), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but misses critical context like session requirements, safety notes, or interaction with sibling tools, making it only minimally viable.
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?
The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it clarifies that 'address' is for the breakpoint location and 'callback' is JavaScript code to execute when hit. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't compensate fully—e.g., it lacks details on address format or callback constraints. The baseline is 3 due to some added meaning, but it's inadequate given the coverage gap.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a software breakpoint') and the target ('at address'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_breakpoints' or 'remove_breakpoint' by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate in the description text.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hook_function' or 'intercept_module_function', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an attached session. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Remove a hook') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify what 'unhook' entails (e.g., whether it's destructive, requires permissions, affects system stability, or has side effects), nor does it explain the return value beyond 'Unhook status.' This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 highly concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, lists the single argument with a brief explanation, and notes the return value, all in three short lines. There's no wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with potential system impact), lack of annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, usage context, or detailed parameter info, and while an output schema exists, the description's vague 'Unhook status' adds little value. This falls short for a tool in a debugging/memory manipulation context.
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?
The description adds minimal semantics: it defines 'address' as 'Address to unhook,' which provides basic meaning. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details (e.g., address format or constraints). The baseline is 3 because the schema coverage is low, but the description offers some clarification.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove a hook') and the target resource ('from an address'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'detach' or 'remove_breakpoint', which might also involve disconnecting or removing something, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing hook), exclusions, or refer to related tools like 'hook_function' or 'list_hooks' for context, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks critical behavioral details: whether unloading is reversible, what permissions are needed, if it affects system stability, or what 'Unload status' entails. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is brief and structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. However, the 'Returns' line is vague ('Unload status') and could be more informative without adding bulk.
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?
Given one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which should detail return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks context on effects, alternatives, or error handling, making it incomplete for safe use in a complex sibling environment.
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 0%, but the description adds basic semantics by explaining 'name' refers to the script to unload. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, path requirements) or examples, leaving gaps despite the single parameter.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'unload' and resource 'custom script', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'detach' or 'unhook_function' that might also remove components, leaving some ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this tool.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'detach', 'unhook_function', and 'remove_breakpoint' that might handle different unloading scenarios, the description offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions a return value ('Resume status') but does not clarify what 'resume' entails (e.g., does it restart execution, affect memory, require specific permissions?). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action, but the second sentence ('Returns: Resume status.') is redundant given the presence of an output schema. This slightly reduces efficiency, though the overall structure is acceptable.
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 tool with 0 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It states the action and hints at a return, but as a mutation tool, it should better explain behavioral implications (e.g., side effects, prerequisites) to be fully helpful.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary information.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Resume') and resource ('a spawned process'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential sibling actions like 'attach' or 'detach' that might also interact with processes, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'spawn' (to start a process) and 'detach' (to disconnect), it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., must have a paused process) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions attaching to a process and returning session information, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, potential side effects (e.g., pausing the process), or error conditions, leaving significant gaps.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('Session information'), slightly reducing efficiency.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (attaching to processes), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details, making it incomplete for safe use without additional context.
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?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'target' by specifying it can be a process name (string) or PID (integer), which clarifies beyond the schema's generic 'anyOf' type. With 0% schema description coverage, this effectively compensates, though it could note format examples.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Attach to') and resource ('a running process'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'detach' or 'spawn' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit sibling distinction.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'spawn' (to start a new process) or 'detach' (to disconnect). The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Hook status' as a return, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., modifies memory), requires specific permissions or states (like an attached process), has side effects (e.g., interrupts execution), or includes rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe and effective use.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a structured list of args and returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. However, the lack of usage context or behavioral details means it could be more comprehensive without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters and return value at a high level, but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed semantics. The output schema likely defines 'Hook status', so the description doesn't need to explain returns, but overall, it's inadequate for a tool with this level of technical detail and potential impact.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Address of function', 'List of argument types'), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't provide examples, format details (e.g., address format, type syntax), or constraints, leaving some ambiguity for implementation.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Hook a native function with explicit calling convention.' It specifies the verb ('hook') and resource ('native function'), and distinguishes it from sibling 'hook_function' by emphasizing 'explicit calling convention.' However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'intercept_module_function' or 'replace_function' in terms of scope or method.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hook_function', 'intercept_module_function', or 'replace_function'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an attached process or specific permissions, and doesn't mention when not to use it, such as for non-native functions or without proper setup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('List of active hooks with addresses and descriptions'), which adds some value, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and return details following. Both sentences are relevant, though the return information could be omitted since an output schema exists, slightly reducing efficiency.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema provided), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but with no annotations and many sibling tools, more context on usage or behavior would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary information.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all active hooks'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_breakpoints' or 'list_modules' beyond the resource name, which prevents a perfect score.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_capabilities' or 'list_breakpoints', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. The description only states what it does without indicating appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Load status' as a return, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this requires an active Frida session, what happens if the script fails to load, if it's idempotent, or any side effects like memory allocation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with system processes.
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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points for args and returns. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of loading scripts in a dynamic analysis context, no annotations, and an output schema that only implies 'Load status', the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basics but lacks details on error conditions, dependencies, or integration with other tools like 'attach' or 'spawn', which are crucial for effective use.
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?
The description lists both parameters ('script_code' and 'name') with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't specify constraints (e.g., script code format, name uniqueness) or examples, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for proper usage.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Load') and resource ('custom Frida JavaScript script'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'unload_script' or 'hook_function' in terms of specific use cases or scope, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unload_script' or other script-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a session must be attached) or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (resolves symbol to address) but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it requires an attached process, what happens if the symbol isn't found (error vs. null), or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without fluff. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations into the main flow, but the structure is clear and efficient.
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?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, prerequisites) and doesn't fully leverage the output schema's existence to explain return value details. For a simple lookup tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps in usage and transparency.
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?
The description explicitly lists and briefly explains both parameters ('module_name' and 'symbol_name'), adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'module_name' is the containing module and 'symbol_name' is the target symbol/function. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description effectively compensates, though it could provide more detail (e.g., format examples).
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'symbol to its address', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_module_info' or 'get_module_exports' by focusing on address resolution rather than general module information or export listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_scan_results' or 'scan_pattern' that might also involve symbol-related operations.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a process must be attached), nor does it compare to siblings like 'get_module_exports' (which might list symbols) or 'scan_pattern' (which might find symbols by pattern). The lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return value ('Number of changed addresses'), which is helpful, but fails to describe what 'last scan' refers to, whether this is a read-only operation, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value. There is no wasted text, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and returns more clearly), preventing a perfect score.
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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains the purpose and return value, yet lacks context about dependencies (e.g., requiring a previous scan) or behavioral details, making it only minimally viable.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is assigned as it meets expectations for a parameterless tool.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find addresses where value has changed since last scan.' This specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('addresses where value has changed'), making it understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_unchanged' or 'scan_next', which prevents a score of 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a prior scan), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'scan_unchanged' or 'scan_pattern'. This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool writes data to memory but fails to mention critical details like permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., system instability), error handling, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with safety concerns.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the tool's core action earlier in the text.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (memory writing with potential risks), no annotations, and an output schema that only indicates 'Write status', the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks safety warnings, error details, or behavioral context, making it adequate but with clear gaps for informed use.
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?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'address' is a hex string, 'data' can be hex or value-based, and 'value_type' specifies data types with examples. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could detail more about format constraints.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('memory address'), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'read_memory'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other memory-related tools beyond the basic function, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'read_memory' for reading or other memory manipulation tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios, offering only basic parameter information without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Call an RPC export' but doesn't explain what happens during the call (e.g., whether it blocks, error handling, permissions needed, or side effects). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves execution in a potentially sensitive context.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by concise sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no wasted text, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (executing RPC calls in a script context) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or dependencies, which are important for safe usage in this domain.
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?
The description adds meaningful context for all three parameters ('name', 'method', 'args') beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'name' refers to a loaded script, 'method' is the RPC method to call, and 'args' are arguments to pass. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail argument formats or constraints.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Call an RPC export from a loaded script.' It specifies the verb ('Call') and resource ('RPC export from a loaded script'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'load_script' or 'unload_script', which handle script management rather than execution.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a script loaded first), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'hook_function' or 'replace_function' for other execution methods. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed (e.g., admin rights), side effects (e.g., focus stealing), error conditions (e.g., if window not found), or performance implications. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details for a mutation tool.
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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for args and returns. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter) and no annotations, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, and the output schema exists (indicating a success status), so return values needn't be explained. However, it lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for safe and effective use.
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?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'target' can be a window title (string) or HWND handle (integer), clarifying the dual nature of the parameter. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., exact title matching).
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Bring a window to the foreground') and specifies the resource (a window). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_windows' or 'screenshot_window' by focusing on activation rather than listing or capturing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'send_key_to_window' which also targets windows but for input purposes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., window must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for minimized windows), or compare to siblings like 'list_windows' for discovery or 'send_key_to_window' for interaction. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists imports but does not describe key behaviors: whether it requires a module to be attached or scanned, if it has rate limits, what happens if the module doesn't exist, or the format of the return list. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.
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 well-structured and concise, using a clear title line followed by bullet points for arguments and returns. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. There is no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage context. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address operational aspects like prerequisites or error handling.
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?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'module_name' is the name of the module and 'filter_name' is an optional filter for import names, clarifying their purposes. However, it does not detail syntax or examples, such as format requirements for module names, preventing a score of 5.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List imports for a module.' This specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('imports for a module'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_module_exports' or 'get_module_info,' which prevents a score of 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a module must be loaded or scanned first, and does not mention sibling tools like 'get_module_exports' for related functionality. This omission leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning 'current scan results with values' and a list of addresses, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. For a read operation in a scanning context, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (retrieving scan results), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter but lacks behavioral details and usage context. With output schema handling return values, it meets baseline completeness but has clear gaps.
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?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'limit: Maximum results to return (default: 20)'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type and title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates, but since there's only one parameter, it's not a perfect 5.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get current scan results with values.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current scan results'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_changed' or 'scan_unchanged', which might retrieve similar data, so it's not a perfect 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'scan_changed', 'scan_unchanged', and 'scan_value' that might retrieve scan-related data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what 'active breakpoints' entails, how results are returned, any permissions needed, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool in a debugging context.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, in a complex debugging server with many sibling tools, more context on what constitutes 'active breakpoints' and how this fits into workflows would improve completeness. The output schema helps but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of behavioral details.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no required inputs by not mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all active breakpoints', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_breakpoint' or 'set_breakpoint' beyond the obvious list vs. modify distinction, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_hooks' and 'list_memory_regions' available, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this specific listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool lists memory regions and returns a list with base, size, and protection, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with potential security implications (memory access), this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections with bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (memory-related operation), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and sufficient behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer context.
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?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'protection' by providing examples (e.g., 'r-x', 'rw-', 'rwx'), which clarifies its format beyond the schema's basic string type. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this compensates well, though it could specify allowed values more explicitly.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List memory regions in the process.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('memory regions'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_modules' or 'list_processes' beyond the resource type. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling comparison.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a filter parameter but doesn't explain scenarios for filtering or not filtering, nor does it reference sibling tools for related tasks. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and basic function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool lists processes with PID and name, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's safe or destructive, rate limits, or output format beyond basic fields. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly without wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context, which are important for a tool in a debugging/server context with many siblings.
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?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'filter_name', explaining it's an optional case-insensitive filter for process names. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose and behavior beyond the schema's basic type and title.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all running processes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_modules' or 'list_windows' by specifying processes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'list_breakpoints' or 'list_hooks' beyond the resource type.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after spawning a process), or comparisons to siblings like 'list_modules' for different resource types. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Read memory') and return values, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid addresses, access violations), safety implications (e.g., whether this is a safe read operation or could crash processes), or dependencies (e.g., requires an attached debug session). This is inadequate for a low-level memory tool.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points for arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a memory read operation, no annotations, and an output schema that likely covers return values, the description is partially complete. It explains parameters well but misses behavioral context like error handling or prerequisites. For a tool with potential safety implications, this leaves gaps that could hinder effective use.
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?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'address' as a hex string, 'size' as bytes to read, and 'format' as output options with examples. This compensates well for the schema's lack of details, though it could specify default values or constraints more explicitly.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('memory at specified address'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_memory_regions' or 'write_memory', which would require mentioning this is for reading raw memory content rather than metadata or writing operations.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'read_memory' over 'list_memory_regions' (for metadata) or 'write_memory' (for modifications), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an attached process or valid memory access. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is removal but doesn't clarify if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, affects program state, or has side effects like resuming execution. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by brief Arg and Return sections. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. The front-loaded purpose ensures immediate understanding.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but misses behavioral details and usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder effective agent use.
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?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'address' by specifying it as 'Address of breakpoint to remove', which clarifies its role beyond the schema's basic title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it could detail address format or examples for a higher score.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('a breakpoint'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_breakpoints' and 'set_breakpoint' by specifying removal rather than listing or creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'unhook_function' or other cleanup tools, which keeps it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It doesn't mention if breakpoints must exist first (e.g., from 'set_breakpoint' or 'list_breakpoints'), nor does it specify context like debugging sessions. Without such usage cues, the agent lacks direction on proper invocation timing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does and the return format, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'scan'), whether it requires specific permissions or process attachment, what happens if no matches are found, or any performance/rate limit considerations. For a memory scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, Args with parameter explanations, and Returns. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and straightforward functionality.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (memory scanning with pattern matching), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which handles return value documentation), the description is partially complete. It covers basic purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, prerequisites, error handling) and usage guidance relative to siblings. The output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but other gaps remain.
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?
The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (just titles 'Pattern' and 'Scan Regions'), but the description explains: pattern format ('Byte pattern like "89 47 44 ?? ?? 5B" (?? = wildcard)') and scan_regions meaning ('Memory protection to scan (default: "r-x" for code)'). This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it could elaborate more on valid region values.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Scan for Array of Bytes (AoB) pattern.' This specifies the verb ('Scan') and resource ('Array of Bytes pattern'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_value', 'scan_changed', or 'scan_next', which appear to be related scanning operations.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions default values ('default: "r-x" for code') but doesn't explain when to choose different scan regions or how this tool differs from other scanning tools in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return value ('Number of unchanged addresses'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details such as what constitutes a 'scan', how 'last scan' is defined, whether this is a read-only operation, or if it has side effects like resetting scan state. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.
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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and the return value, but lacks context about how it integrates with other scan tools or what 'last scan' means. For a simple tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps in usage context.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given since the tool has no parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find addresses where value has NOT changed since last scan.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('addresses where value has NOT changed'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'scan_changed', which performs the opposite function, though this is implied by the name contrast.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a prior scan), context for 'last scan', or compare it to siblings like 'scan_changed' or 'scan_next'. Without this, users might struggle to apply it correctly in workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool 'Returns: Module details including base, size, exports count,' it lacks critical information such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions or session states, error handling, or performance considerations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 well-structured and concise, using clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns' without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's functionality and parameters, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter example, and return content, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are important for a tool in a debugging/analysis context with many siblings. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'module_name' by providing an example ('e.g., "game.dll"'), which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's basic type definition. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this example compensates well, though it doesn't fully detail constraints or validation rules. With only one parameter, the baseline is high, and the example adds sufficient value.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific module'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_modules' (which likely lists all modules) or 'get_module_exports' (which focuses on exports), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'list_modules' (for listing all modules) or 'get_module_exports' (for export-specific details), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without explicit direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool hooks functions and returns 'Hook status', it doesn't explain critical behaviors: what happens when a function is hooked (does execution pause? are there side effects?), what permissions or conditions are needed, whether hooks persist across sessions, or potential risks like crashes from invalid JavaScript code.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, and the parameter explanations provide necessary context without redundancy.
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 complex function-hooking tool with no annotations, the description covers parameters well but lacks critical behavioral context about how hooking works, security implications, or error conditions. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but the description should do more to explain the tool's operational behavior given its potential destructiveness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters: 'address' (hex string location), 'on_enter' (JavaScript code with 'args' access), 'on_leave' (JavaScript code with 'retval' access), and 'description' (optional). This provides essential semantic context that the bare schema titles lack.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Hook a function') and the target ('at the specified address'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'hook_native_function' or 'intercept_module_function', which appear to serve similar purposes in this debugging/instrumentation context.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hook_native_function' or 'intercept_module_function'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed for hooking functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads values (implying a read-only operation) and describes the return format as 'Basic thread and architecture info,' which adds useful context beyond the basic purpose. However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like permissions needed, error conditions, or performance implications.
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?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, providing a technical note, and describing returns. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the note about 'hook callbacks' might be slightly tangential for some users, slightly reducing efficiency.
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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which complements the structured data. For a simple read operation with no inputs, this provides adequate context, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on other aspects without redundant parameter details.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Read CPU register values,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from potential sibling tools like 'get_session_info' or 'list_capabilities' that might also provide system information, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that 'Full register context available in hook callbacks via 'this.context',' but this is a technical note rather than usage guidance. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns session state including attached process, hooks, and scan state, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, or error conditions, which are gaps for a tool with no annotations.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a brief returns section. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized.
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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, though it could benefit from more context on usage scenarios or limitations to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary details.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current session information', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_module_info' or 'list_processes' that also retrieve information, so it's not fully specific about what makes this tool unique.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists tools and returns a dictionary with MCP info and categorized tools, which is useful. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error conditions, or performance aspects (e.g., if it's a heavy operation). The description doesn't contradict any annotations, but it's minimal for a tool with no annotation support.
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 extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values further. However, it could improve by adding usage context or behavioral nuances, but for a basic listing tool, it's adequate.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary details about inputs.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all tools provided by this MCP server.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('tools provided by this MCP server'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_session_info' or 'list_processes', which might also provide listings but of different resources.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. Given the many sibling tools, such as 'list_modules' or 'list_processes', there's no indication of when this tool is preferred over others for listing-related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists 'visible windows' and returns specific fields, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires elevated permissions, how it handles hidden or minimized windows, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with system-level access (inferred from sibling tools), this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the parameter, and the third describes the return format. There's zero redundancy or unnecessary information.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (listing system windows), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter usage, and return structure. However, it lacks behavioral context about permissions, limitations, or error handling that would be important for a system tool.
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?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'filter_name' by explaining it's an 'Optional filter to match window titles (case-insensitive)', which goes beyond the schema's minimal title 'Filter Name' and 0% coverage. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and behavior effectively, though it doesn't specify format examples or advanced filtering options.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'all visible windows', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'focus_window' or 'screenshot_window' by being a listing operation rather than an action on a specific window. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other listing tools like 'list_processes' or 'list_modules' beyond the resource type.
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 description implies usage when needing to enumerate windows, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_processes' for processes or 'focus_window' for interacting with a specific window. There's no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or typical use cases, leaving usage context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool clears results and resets state, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (likely yes, but not confirmed), if it requires specific permissions, or what happens to ongoing scans. The mention of a return value is minimal.
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 extremely concise with two sentences: one stating the action and one noting the return value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it highly efficient.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (simple reset operation), 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., destructiveness, side effects) that would be helpful for an agent, especially without annotations.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('clear', 'reset') and resources ('current scan results', 'scan state'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_scan_results' (which retrieves results) and 'scan_*' tools (which perform scans).
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 description implies usage when scan results need to be cleared, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., after a scan is complete, before starting a new scan) or any prerequisites. It's adequate but lacks detailed context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (list with base address, size, path) but omits behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. It adds some value but is incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently details the return values in the second. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it appropriately sized and structured.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context, which are minor gaps in this simple case.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents inputs. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable here as there are no parameters to explain, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
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 clearly states the specific action ('List all loaded modules') and resource ('modules (DLLs/shared libraries)'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_processes or list_windows by focusing on modules. It provides precise scope without tautology.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_module_info or list_processes. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools, offering only basic functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: spawning a process in a suspended state for hooking purposes, and notes that 'Call resume() to start execution,' clarifying the interaction with another tool. It doesn't cover aspects like error conditions, permissions needed, or system impacts, but provides sufficient core behavioral context for a mutation tool.
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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, brief parameter explanations, and a note on returns and next steps. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (spawning processes with hooking intent), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns' note), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral flow (calling resume()), but lacks details on error handling, security implications, or output structure, which could be important for safe usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'path' is described as 'Path to executable,' and 'args' as 'Optional command line arguments,' which clarifies their roles beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't detail format specifics (e.g., path syntax or argument array structure), leaving some gaps.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Spawn a process suspended for early hooking.' It specifies the verb ('spawn'), resource ('process'), and key behavioral trait ('suspended for early hooking'), which distinguishes it from generic process creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'attach' or 'list_processes', keeping it from a perfect score.
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 description implies usage context through 'suspended for early hooking,' suggesting this tool is for debugging or instrumentation scenarios where process execution needs to be paused initially. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'attach' (for existing processes) or 'resume' (to start execution), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose and return information, but does not detail behavioral traits such as error handling, performance characteristics, or dependencies. It adequately describes what it does without contradictions.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise note on returns. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, and with an output schema, detailed return value explanations are unnecessary. However, it could slightly improve by mentioning any specific conditions or limitations.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Check if Frida is installed and working') and identifies the resource (Frida). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_session_info' or 'list_capabilities' by focusing on installation status rather than runtime information or capabilities.
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 description implies usage when verifying Frida's installation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_session_info' (which might include installation details) or provide prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions scanning memory and returning the number of addresses found, but does not cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's read-only or destructive, potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling. For a memory scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, followed by a structured breakdown of args and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (memory scanning with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema that likely covers return values, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return value, but lacks behavioral details like safety or performance implications. With the output schema handling returns, the description adequately covers core aspects but could improve on context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining each parameter: 'value' as the value to search for, 'value_type' with specific type options, and 'scan_regions' as memory protection with a default. This provides clear context that the schema lacks, though it could detail format constraints for 'scan_regions'.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Scan memory for exact value (initial scan).' It specifies the verb ('scan'), resource ('memory'), and scope ('exact value'), distinguishing it from siblings like scan_changed, scan_next, scan_pattern, and scan_unchanged. The mention of 'initial scan' further clarifies its role in a scanning workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by noting it's for an 'initial scan,' suggesting it's the first step in a scanning process. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like scan_pattern or scan_next, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions basic functionality. It doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it requires user interaction, potential privacy implications, or error conditions. The description is minimal beyond stating the core action.
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?
Perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place - no wasted words, front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (returns screenshot info), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a potentially privacy-sensitive screen capture tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context about permissions or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'save_path' (optional path for PNG, returns base64 if empty) and 'region' (optional [x, y, width, height] array). It adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the verb 'take' and resource 'screenshot of the entire screen or a region', distinguishing it from sibling 'screenshot_window' which targets windows specifically. It's specific and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for capturing screen/region screenshots but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over 'screenshot_window' or other alternatives. It provides clear context about what it does but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool captures screenshots, accepts window titles or handles, and outputs base64 or file paths. However, it misses important details like permissions needed, whether it requires window focus, error conditions, or performance implications.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by well-structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with clear headings enhances readability.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and output behavior adequately, though could benefit from more behavioral context like error handling or prerequisites.
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?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'target' can be a window title string or HWND handle integer, and clarifies that 'save_path' being empty triggers base64 return. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Take a screenshot') and resource ('of a specific window'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'screenshot_screen' which captures the entire screen. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for capturing window-specific screenshots, with the 'save_path' parameter guidance suggesting when to use base64 vs file output. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'screenshot_screen' or other window-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the two different implementation methods (SendInput vs PostMessage), the focus requirement for SendInput, and the success status return. It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or security implications, but covers essential operational behavior.
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?
Perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter explanations and return value description. Every sentence earns its place - no redundant information, no fluff, and technical details are presented in a logical, scannable format.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of inputs and basic behavior. The output schema handles return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context. It could mention error cases or platform limitations, but covers the essential context well.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all 3 parameters: target accepts both string titles and integer HWND handles, key provides concrete examples of valid values, and use_sendinput explains the functional difference between the two options. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the specific action ('send a keystroke') and target resource ('to a specific window'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'focus_window' or 'screenshot_window'. It uses precise technical language that accurately conveys the tool's function without ambiguity.
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 description implies usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., 'requires window focus' for use_sendinput), but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'focus_window' or other input-related tools. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![frida-game-hacking-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0xhackerfren/frida-game-hacking-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0xhackerfren/frida-game-hacking-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![frida-game-hacking-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0xhackerfren/frida-game-hacking-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0xhackerfren/frida-game-hacking-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/0xhackerfren/frida-game-hacking-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server