Skip to main content
Glama
0xhackerfren

Frida Game Hacking MCP

by 0xhackerfren

remove_breakpoint

Remove a breakpoint at a specified memory address in game hacking and reverse engineering workflows using Frida MCP server.

Instructions

Remove a breakpoint.

Args:
    address: Address of breakpoint to remove

Returns:
    Removal status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'remove_breakpoint' tool. It checks if a breakpoint exists at the given address in the session state, unloads the associated Frida script, removes it from the breakpoints dictionary, and returns success or error status.
    def remove_breakpoint(address: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Remove a breakpoint.
        
        Args:
            address: Address of breakpoint to remove
        
        Returns:
            Removal status.
        """
        global _session
        
        if address not in _session.breakpoints:
            return {"error": f"No breakpoint at {address}"}
        
        try:
            _session.breakpoints[address].unload()
            del _session.breakpoints[address]
            return {"success": True, "address": address}
        
        except Exception as e:
            return {"error": f"Failed to remove breakpoint: {str(e)}"}
  • The FridaSession class manages session state including a 'breakpoints' dictionary that stores active breakpoint scripts, used by remove_breakpoint to track and remove breakpoints.
    class FridaSession:
        """Manages Frida session state."""
        
        def __init__(self):
            self.device: Optional[Any] = None
            self.session: Optional[Any] = None
            self.pid: Optional[int] = None
            self.process_name: Optional[str] = None
            self.spawned: bool = False
            self.scan_state: ScanState = ScanState()
            self.hooks: Dict[str, HookInfo] = {}
            self.breakpoints: Dict[str, Any] = {}
            self.custom_scripts: Dict[str, Any] = {}
        
        def is_attached(self) -> bool:
            return self.session is not None and not self.session.is_detached
        
        def reset(self):
            self.session = None
            self.pid = None
            self.process_name = None
            self.spawned = False
            self.scan_state = ScanState()
            self.hooks.clear()
            self.breakpoints.clear()
            self.custom_scripts.clear()
  • The list_capabilities tool lists 'remove_breakpoint' under the 'debugging' category, indicating its registration in the MCP toolset.
            "debugging": [
                "set_breakpoint", "remove_breakpoint", "list_breakpoints", "read_registers"
            ],
            "script_management": [
                "load_script", "unload_script", "call_rpc"
            ],
            "window_interaction": [
                "list_windows", "screenshot_window", "screenshot_screen",
                "send_key_to_window", "focus_window"
            ],
            "standard": [
                "list_capabilities", "get_documentation", "check_installation"
            ]
        },
        "total_tools": 42
    }
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.

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