Frida MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions injection but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this requires elevated privileges, if it's destructive to the process, potential side effects (e.g., process instability), or error handling. The description is functional but lacks transparency about risks and operational 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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for the stated 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 tool's complexity (library injection into processes), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address safety, permissions, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use this tool effectively in context.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'library_path' refers to a shared library file. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'entrypoint' and 'data' relate) or provide examples, relying on the schema for most documentation.

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 ('inject') and target ('shared library into target process'), specifying the file types (.so/.dll/.dylib). It distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_inject_script (which injects scripts rather than libraries) by focusing on library injection. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 like frida_inject_script or frida_spawn. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., process must be running), exclusions, or typical use cases, offering only a basic functional statement without usage context.

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