Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Frida Agent MCP

Frida Agent MCP

by 1193776794
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

launch_app

Start Android applications by specifying their package name to enable dynamic analysis and reverse engineering through the Frida Agent MCP server.

Instructions

Launch an Android app by package name.

Args: package: The app package name (e.g. com.example.app).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "package": "<package>"
    },
    "name": "launch_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states only the action (launch) without disclosing what happens if the app is already running, potential side effects, or required permissions. Minimal behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 with one sentence and a single parameter definition. It is front-loaded, wastes no words, and covers the core information efficiently.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is adequate. However, it could mention whether the launch blocks or returns immediately, or any error conditions. It covers the basics but misses useful 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by providing the example 'com.example.app' and explaining the parameter as 'The app package name.' This adds basic meaning but lacks details like format or constraints (e.g., length, valid characters).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Launch an Android app by package name.' The verb 'launch' and resource 'Android app' are specific, and the method (by package name) is evident. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kill_app (kill) or list_apps (list).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute' (which runs commands) or other siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, restrictions, or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools