Frida MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'Returns a session ID for further operations,' which hints at stateful behavior and follow-up actions, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, potential side effects (e.g., pausing the process), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the action and outcome. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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 attaching to a process (a potentially stateful or invasive operation), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return format beyond 'session ID,' and how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is low at 33%, with only the 'target' parameter documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying 'device_id' or 'device_type' usage. Since schema coverage is below 50%, the description does not compensate adequately, resulting in a baseline score that reflects incomplete parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Attach to a running process') and the resource ('a running process'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'frida_spawn' (which starts a new process) or 'frida_get_process' (which retrieves process info without attaching), leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'frida_spawn' for starting processes or 'frida_detach' for ending sessions. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing a running process) or exclusions, offering only basic functional information without usage context.

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