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 mentions the core functionality but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's read-only or has side effects, error handling, performance characteristics, or output format. For a debugging tool with potential security implications, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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 functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear language. Every part of the sentence earns its place by describing the bidirectional capability.

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 a debugging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, error conditions, output format, and how it fits within the broader Frida toolset. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use in a dynamic debugging environment.

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% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema: 'address' and 'name'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool can work bidirectionally (address to symbol or symbol to address), which helps interpret the parameters. However, it doesn't clarify the relationship between 'address' and 'name' (e.g., if they're mutually exclusive) or provide additional context for 'session_id', leaving some semantic gaps.

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: 'Resolve debug symbol information from an address or find address from symbol name.' This specifies the verb ('resolve'/'find') and resource ('debug symbol information'/'address'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'frida_list_symbols' or 'frida_resolve_exports', which might have overlapping functionality in a Frida debugging context.

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 (e.g., needing an active Frida session), exclusions (e.g., not working on detached processes), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'frida_list_symbols' (which might list symbols without resolving addresses). Usage is implied by the functionality described but not explicitly stated.

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