Creates ready-to-use Frida hooking scripts for SSL pinning bypass, root cloaking, or cryptographic interception, with an optional Android target package.
Hasilkan skrip Frida dynamic hooking siap pakai untuk bypass SSL pinning, penyamaran root, atau penyadapan kriptografi.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preset | Yes | Jenis template skrip yang diinginkan | |
| target_package | No | Nama package aplikasi Android target (opsional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the scripts are "siap pakai" (ready to use) but never states whether the result is returned as text, written to disk, or whether any side effect occurs, nor what happens with target_package or whether the generated script is validated. For a zero-annotation tool this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short, though that brevity is partly why the behavioral and usage gaps exist.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at least characterize the return value (source text vs. file path) and any environment requirements. For a two-parameter generator tool the current sentence is minimally viable but leaves the agent guessing about the result and about how target_package interacts with presets.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (preset enum and optional target_package) are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's mention of the use cases loosely mirrors the preset values but adds no syntax or selection logic beyond what the enum already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("Hasilkan skrip Frida dynamic hooking") and enumerates the concrete use cases (SSL pinning bypass, root cloaking, crypto interception) that correspond to the preset enum values. It is not tautological and an agent can tell what it produces, though the mapping from prose use cases to the four named presets is implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. rooted device, app already installed), and no mention of alternatives. The sibling tools are unrelated in domain, so the lack of differentiation there is not the problem — the problem is that nothing tells the agent which preset to pick or when this tool is appropriate versus manual approach.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.