Frida MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed info' but does not specify what that includes (e.g., memory usage, threads, permissions), whether it requires specific permissions or device connectivity, or potential side effects (e.g., if it pauses the process). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with system processes.

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. It directly states what the tool does and the key parameter usage, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage or structural issues.

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 process inspection in a tool like Frida, the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided to clarify safety or behavior, and there is no output schema to describe the returned 'detailed info'. The description lacks details on what information is retrieved, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., device connectivity). For a tool with three parameters and no structured support, this is inadequate.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It clarifies that the 'process' parameter can be a 'name or PID', which is useful but already implied by the schema's description. With schema description coverage at 33% (only one parameter documented), the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters like 'device_id' and 'device_type', leaving their purposes unclear. The baseline is 3 due to the schema's partial coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed info about a specific process by name or PID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('detailed info'), and target ('specific process'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'frida_get_process_info' or 'frida_list_processes', which likely serve related but distinct purposes.

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 does not mention sibling tools such as 'frida_get_process_info' (which might retrieve different or overlapping information) or 'frida_list_processes' (which likely lists processes without details). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage beyond the basic purpose.

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