vesper

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

frida_unhook

Destructive

Remove a specific interceptor hook from an active process session using device, session, and hook identifiers to detach instrumentation cleanly.

Instructions

Remove a specific interceptor from this process session.

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>",
      "hook_id": "<hook_id>"
    },
    "name": "frida_unhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hook_id`	Yes
`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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping detail that the removal targets one interceptor in the current process session, but says nothing about side effects (does the original method behavior resume?) or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing guidance elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive three-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 all three required parameters. The description only indirectly gestures at hook_id ('a specific interceptor') and session_id ('this process session'), and says nothing about device_id or the ID formats/constraints encoded in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a specific interceptor from this process session.' That is clearly distinct from read-style siblings like frida_get_events, though it does not explicitly contrast with frida_detach, which plausibly tears down hooks/sessions too.

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 on when to use this versus frida_detach or frida_trace_method, no preconditions, and no note about erroring on an invalid or already-removed hook_id. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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