frida-ios-mcp

by YPYT1

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

dual_ping

Verify dual Frida injection and concurrent lock handling by pinging the iOS app and SpringBoard simultaneously.

Instructions

[advanced] Parallel health: app ping + SpringBoard ping at the same time (proves dual inject + concurrent locks).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dual_ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses the parallel execution and the purpose of testing concurrent locks. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not cover potential side effects, error conditions, or requirements (e.g., device state).

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the purpose and advanced nature.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. The '[advanced]' marker implies caution, but no additional context is needed for such a simple tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

No parameters exist, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds context about what the tool does beyond the schema, which is sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states it performs parallel health pings (app + SpringBoard). The phrase 'proves dual inject + concurrent locks' adds specificity, though it is slightly technical. Distinguishes from sibling 'ping' which likely does a single ping.

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?

Only an '[advanced]' tag hints at non-standard usage. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives like the single 'ping' tool.

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