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. It mentions the tool 'Returns symbols exported by the C code,' which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what happens on failure, or any performance or security implications of compiling and loading C code.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first clause and the return behavior in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 compiling and loading C code, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover error handling, side effects, or the format of returned symbols. For a tool with three parameters and potential security implications, more context is needed to guide 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 67%, with two parameters (code and symbols) having descriptions and one (session_id) lacking. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It implies the tool uses the code and symbols parameters but doesn't explain their roles further. With moderate schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Compile and load inline C code for high-performance hooks.' It specifies the verb (compile and load), resource (inline C code), and context (for hooks). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like frida_compile_agent or frida_native_function, which may have overlapping functionality.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an active session, or compare it to siblings like frida_compile_agent or frida_inject_script. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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