Skip to main content
Glama
0xhackerfren

Frida Game Hacking MCP

by 0xhackerfren

load_script

Load custom JavaScript scripts into game processes for memory scanning, value modification, and function hooking using Frida's instrumentation framework.

Instructions

Load a custom Frida JavaScript script.

Args:
    script_code: JavaScript code to load
    name: Name to identify the script

Returns:
    Load status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
script_codeYes
nameNocustom

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the 'load_script' MCP tool. It creates and loads a Frida script into the current session, storing it by name for later use with unload_script or call_rpc.
    @mcp.tool()
    def load_script(script_code: str, name: str = "custom") -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Load a custom Frida JavaScript script.
        
        Args:
            script_code: JavaScript code to load
            name: Name to identify the script
        
        Returns:
            Load status.
        """
        global _session
        
        if not _session.is_attached():
            return {"error": "Not attached. Use attach() first."}
        
        if name in _session.custom_scripts:
            return {"error": f"Script '{name}' exists. Use unload_script() first."}
        
        try:
            script = _session.session.create_script(script_code)
            script.on('message', lambda m, d: logger.info(f"[{name}] {m}"))
            script.load()
            
            _session.custom_scripts[name] = script
            return {"success": True, "name": name}
        
        except Exception as e:
            return {"error": f"Failed to load script: {str(e)}"}
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.

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