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 only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions or device states are required, side effects, or error conditions, making it inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 highly concise. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context like behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient 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 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'device_id' or 'device_type' are, their roles in disabling spawn gating, or how they interact, leaving both parameters undocumented and uninterpretable.

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 'Disable spawn gating' states the action (disable) and target (spawn gating), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'spawn gating' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'frida_enable_spawn_gating' beyond the opposite action, lacking specificity about scope 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that spawn gating must be enabled first), dependencies on other tools, or typical workflows, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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