vesper

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

frida_detach

Destructive

Unloads the Frida inspection agent and active hooks, then detaches from the specified device session to cleanly end runtime inspection.

Instructions

Unload the inspection agent and hooks, then detach.

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": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>",
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "frida_detach"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`device_id`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No
`elapsed_ms`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds what is actually destroyed (the injected agent and installed hooks), which is useful. It omits post-conditions such as the session becoming invalid or events stopping, which matter for a destructive teardown.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and its effect. No filler. It is arguably too terse for a destructive tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, a destructive teardown with two undocumented required parameters leaves gaps around session identification and post-detach state.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two required parameters (device_id, session_id), and the description says nothing about them. With low coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what identifies the session; it does not.

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?

Specific verbs and resources: 'Unload the inspection agent and hooks, then detach.' An agent can tell this tears down a Frida session. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling frida_unhook, which also removes hooks, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 statement of when to call this versus frida_unhook or how to handle an active session. 'Then detach' weakly implies end-of-session teardown, but no preconditions, ordering, or alternatives are given.

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