Dump decrypted DEX from memory for rooted Android apps with Frida to unpack hardened APKs. Requires root, frida-server, and frida-dexdump.
root 方案：用 frida-dexdump 从内存 dump 已解密 dex。需设备已 root + frida-server 运行 + 本机安装 frida-dexdump。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pkg | Yes | 目标应用包名 | |
| spawn | No | true=由 frida 启动应用(脱壳更完整)，false=按包名 attach | |
| outDir | No | ||
| serial | No | ||
| deepSearch | No | 深度搜索，默认 true |
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 burden. It usefully discloses the setup preconditions (root, frida-server, local frida-dexdump), which is the key operational gate. But it omits side effects (frida attach/spawn on a live app), where dumped dex files land, and failure behavior.
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?
Two short sentences: capability first, then prerequisites. Nothing redundant, every clause is load-bearing.
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?
For a 5-parameter mutation-ish tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical environment prerequisites but leaves outDir, serial, and the result location/format unexplained, so the agent cannot fully anticipate the call's outcome.
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 coverage is 60% (outDir and serial have no descriptions) and the description adds nothing about any parameter — no default, format, or behavior hints beyond what the schema already says for pkg, spawn, and deepSearch. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.
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?
"用 frida-dexdump 从内存 dump 已解密 dex" states a specific verb (dump), resource (decrypted dex), mechanism (frida-dexdump, in-memory), and approach label ("root 方案"). This implicitly separates it from static_unpack and the blackdex_* siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Prerequisites are clearly stated (device rooted, frida-server running, frida-dexdump installed locally), and "root 方案" hints at a non-root alternative. However, no sibling is named, so an agent is left to infer when to pick this over static_unpack, blackdex_prepare/pull, or frida_prepare.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.