Frida MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that spawn gating 'intercept[s] new processes before they run,' which hints at a monitoring/mutation capability, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, affects system stability, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool that likely modifies runtime behavior, this is insufficient.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action and front-loads the core purpose.

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 (a tool that likely modifies process interception behavior), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage for parameters, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does at a high level but lacks crucial details about parameters, behavioral implications, and usage context that would be needed 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%, meaning neither parameter (device_id, device_type) is documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they are, when they're required, or how they affect the operation. This leaves both parameters completely undocumented.

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 action ('Enable spawn gating') and the purpose ('to intercept new processes before they run'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'frida_disable_spawn_gating' beyond the obvious enable/disable distinction, which prevents a perfect score.

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 a device connection first), when spawn gating is appropriate versus other interception methods, or what happens after enabling it. The context is implied but not explicit.

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