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 it 'gets' info, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's safe to call repeatedly, rate limits, or what happens if the session is invalid. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 action ('Get detailed info') and includes relevant examples. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by clarifying scope and content.

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, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral constraints, return values, and usage context. For a tool in a complex environment like Frida with many siblings, more guidance is needed to be fully helpful.

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. It mentions 'attached process' which hints at the session_id parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain what session_id is, its format, or how to obtain it. With 1 undocumented parameter, the description adds some meaning but insufficient to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed info about the attached process') with specific examples of what info is retrieved ('arch, platform, threads, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings like frida_get_device_info or frida_get_frontmost by specifying it's about the attached process, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from frida_get_process which might be similar.

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 an attached session), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like frida_get_process or frida_enumerate_threads. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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