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 'protections' but doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list format, pagination), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool that likely interacts with process memory, 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 memory enumeration in a debugging context, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 50% (only 'protection' has a description), and the description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It implies filtering by protection but doesn't clarify the 'session_id' parameter or provide examples beyond the schema's basic filter note. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers half the parameters 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 clearly states the action ('Enumerate') and target ('memory ranges/maps in the process'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'frida_list_modules' or 'frida_memory_scan', which might have overlapping functionality in memory analysis contexts.

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. Given the many sibling tools related to memory (e.g., 'frida_memory_scan', 'frida_list_modules'), the description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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