Skip to main content
Glama
0xhackerfren

Frida Game Hacking MCP

by 0xhackerfren

get_documentation

Retrieve documentation and usage examples for Frida game hacking topics including memory, hooking, scanning, and code injection techniques.

Instructions

Get documentation and usage examples.

Args:
    topic: Documentation topic (general, memory, hooking, scanning, examples)

Returns:
    Documentation for the requested topic.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNogeneral

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function decorated with @mcp.tool() that implements the get_documentation tool. It provides documentation strings for various topics like general usage, scanning, and hooking.
    @mcp.tool()
    def get_documentation(topic: str = "general") -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Get documentation and usage examples.
        
        Args:
            topic: Documentation topic (general, memory, hooking, scanning, examples)
        
        Returns:
            Documentation for the requested topic.
        """
        docs = {
            "tool": "frida-game-hacking-mcp",
            "official_docs": "https://frida.re/docs/",
            "topic": topic
        }
        
        if topic == "general":
            docs["quick_start"] = """
    CHEAT ENGINE-STYLE WORKFLOW:
    
    1. Find your target process:
       list_processes("game")
    
    2. Attach to the process:
       attach("game.exe")
    
    3. Scan for a known value (e.g., health = 100):
       scan_value(100, "int32")
    
    4. Change the value in-game and narrow results:
       scan_next(95)
    
    5. Repeat until you find the address, then modify:
       write_memory("0x12345678", "E7030000")  # 999
    
    PATTERN SCANNING (for code that survives updates):
       scan_pattern("89 47 44 ?? ?? 5B", "r-x")
    
    FUNCTION HOOKING:
       hook_function("0x401234",
           on_enter="console.log('Called!');",
           on_leave="retval.replace(1);")
    """
            docs["value_types"] = [
                "int8/uint8 (1 byte)", "int16/uint16 (2 bytes)",
                "int32/uint32 (4 bytes)", "int64/uint64 (8 bytes)",
                "float (4 bytes)", "double (8 bytes)", "string"
            ]
        
        elif topic == "scanning":
            docs["workflow"] = """
    MEMORY SCANNING WORKFLOW:
    
    1. scan_value(100, "int32")  - Initial scan
    2. scan_next(95)             - Narrow after value changes
    3. scan_changed()            - Find values that changed
    4. scan_unchanged()          - Find values that stayed same
    5. get_scan_results()        - View matching addresses
    6. clear_scan()              - Reset for new scan
    
    PATTERN SCANNING:
       scan_pattern("89 47 ?? 5B", "r-x")
       - ?? = wildcard (matches any byte)
       - "r-x" = code sections
       - "rw-" = data sections
    """
        
        elif topic == "hooking":
            docs["examples"] = """
    INTERCEPT FUNCTION:
       hook_function("0x401234",
           on_enter="console.log('Args:', args[0]);",
           on_leave="console.log('Return:', retval);")
    
    REPLACE RETURN VALUE:
       replace_function("0x401234", 1)  # Always return 1
    
    HOOK BY NAME:
       intercept_module_function("game.dll", "CheckLicense",
           on_leave="retval.replace(1);")
    
    EARLY HOOKING:
       spawn("game.exe")
       hook_function("0x401234", ...)
       resume()
    """
        
        return docs
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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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