Frida MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool inspects an APK but doesn't describe what the inspection involves (e.g., read-only analysis, potential side effects, output format, or any limitations like file size constraints). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured by including key details. There's no wasted text, making it concise.

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?

Given the complexity of APK inspection (likely involving analysis tasks), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the inspection returns (e.g., metadata, vulnerabilities, code structure) or behavioral aspects, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'apk_path' clearly documented as 'Path to APK file'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this (e.g., format requirements, examples, or constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states the tool inspects an Android APK file using frida-apk, which provides a basic verb (inspect) and resource (APK file). However, it's vague about what 'inspect' entails (e.g., extracting metadata, analyzing code, checking permissions) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like frida_list_modules or frida_list_imports that might also analyze APK components. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an APK file available), context for inspection (e.g., static analysis vs. dynamic), or how it differs from other frida tools that might handle APK-related tasks. The description offers no usage context or exclusions.

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