Skip to main content
Glama
0xhackerfren

Frida Game Hacking MCP

by 0xhackerfren

list_processes

Identify running processes on a system to target for game hacking, reverse engineering, or memory manipulation tasks using Frida.

Instructions

List all running processes.

Args:
    filter_name: Optional filter to match process names (case-insensitive)

Returns:
    List of processes with PID and name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filter_nameNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'list_processes' tool. It uses Frida to enumerate running processes on the local device, filters by name if provided, sorts them alphabetically, limits to 100 results, and returns a dictionary with count and list of processes (PID and name). Handles Frida not available and exceptions.
    @mcp.tool()
    def list_processes(filter_name: str = "") -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        List all running processes.
        
        Args:
            filter_name: Optional filter to match process names (case-insensitive)
        
        Returns:
            List of processes with PID and name.
        """
        if not FRIDA_AVAILABLE:
            return {"error": "Frida not installed. Run: pip install frida frida-tools"}
        
        try:
            device = get_device()
            processes = device.enumerate_processes()
            
            result = []
            for proc in processes:
                if filter_name and filter_name.lower() not in proc.name.lower():
                    continue
                result.append({"pid": proc.pid, "name": proc.name})
            
            result.sort(key=lambda x: x["name"].lower())
            return {"count": len(result), "processes": result[:100]}
        
        except Exception as e:
            return {"error": f"Failed to enumerate processes: {str(e)}"}
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.

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