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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool intercepts methods but doesn't explain what interception entails (e.g., modifies runtime behavior, requires specific permissions, may affect app stability), the scope of interception (e.g., system-wide or process-specific), or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core purpose immediately, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (method interception is a powerful, potentially destructive operation), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral implications, error conditions, return values, or safety considerations, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use this tool effectively and safely.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), providing a solid baseline. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents (class_name, method_name, implementation, session_id). It doesn't clarify parameter relationships, format requirements, or provide examples, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline expectation.

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 ('Intercept') and target ('Objective-C method (iOS) or Java method (Android)'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'frida_hook_function', 'frida_objc_hook_method', or 'frida_java_hook_method', which appear to offer similar hooking/interception capabilities.

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 the various hooking-related sibling tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active Frida session), specific use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for tool selection.

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