Frida MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether it requires an attached device, error conditions (e.g., if no frontmost app exists), return format, or rate limits. 'Get' implies a read operation, but without annotations, more transparency is needed for a mutation-risk context.

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 extremely concise—a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word ('Get', 'frontmost application', 'mobile devices') contributes essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but lacks parameter details, behavioral context, and output information. For a tool in a complex Frida ecosystem with many siblings, more guidance is needed to ensure correct usage.

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%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It adds no information about device_id or device_type parameters—not explaining what they represent, their formats, or default behaviors. The mention of 'mobile devices' hints at context but doesn't clarify parameter usage or requirements.

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 ('Get') and target ('the frontmost application'), specifying it's for mobile devices. It distinguishes itself from siblings like frida_get_process or frida_get_device_info by focusing on the currently active application rather than processes or device information. However, it doesn't explicitly mention Frida context or differentiate from all siblings like frida_list_applications.

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 connected device), when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare it to siblings like frida_get_process_info or frida_list_applications. The mobile device specification offers some context but no explicit usage rules.

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