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 'compile' and 'useful for complex agents with dependencies,' which implies a build/transformation process, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, error handling, performance implications, or output format. For a compilation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that directly state the purpose and usage context without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 tool's complexity (compilation with dependencies), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and context but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output specifics. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for effective agent 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (source_code and output_filename) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value here.

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 a Frida agent (JavaScript/TypeScript) using frida-compile.' It specifies the verb ('compile'), resource ('Frida agent'), and technology ('frida-compile'), making it distinct from sibling tools like frida_evaluate or frida_inject_script. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, as some might also involve compilation or processing.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Useful for complex agents with dependencies.' This suggests when to use it (for complex agents) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It lacks clear exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, such as frida_evaluate for simpler scripts.

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