Skip to main content
Glama
0xhackerfren

Frida Game Hacking MCP

by 0xhackerfren

unhook_function

Remove function hooks from memory addresses to restore original code behavior during game hacking and reverse engineering processes.

Instructions

Remove a hook from an address.

Args:
    address: Address to unhook

Returns:
    Unhook status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'unhook_function' MCP tool. It removes a hook from the specified address by unloading the associated Frida script and deleting the hook entry from the session state.
    @mcp.tool()
    def unhook_function(address: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Remove a hook from an address.
        
        Args:
            address: Address to unhook
        
        Returns:
            Unhook status.
        """
        global _session
        
        if address not in _session.hooks:
            return {"error": f"No hook at {address}"}
        
        try:
            _session.hooks[address].script.unload()
            del _session.hooks[address]
            return {"success": True, "address": address, "message": f"Hook removed from {address}"}
        
        except Exception as e:
            return {"error": f"Failed to remove hook: {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 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.

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