Frida MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. 'Detach' implies ending a connection, but it doesn't disclose whether this is destructive (e.g., stops debugging), has side effects, requires specific states, or what happens post-detachment. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's overly terse and could benefit from slightly more context without losing efficiency.

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 likely complexity (involving session management in a debugging context), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what detachment does, its effects, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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% for the single parameter 'session_id', which is documented as 'Session ID from frida_attach'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Detach from a session' clearly states the action (detach) and target (a session), but it's vague about what 'detach' entails operationally. It distinguishes from siblings like 'frida_attach' by implying an inverse operation, but lacks specificity about the session's nature or effects.

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. While it logically follows 'frida_attach', the description doesn't explicitly state this relationship, prerequisites, or any context for detachment (e.g., after debugging).

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