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 mentions the return type ('class names') and optional filtering, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, permissions required, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by return details. It uses two concise sentences with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information.

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, no output schema, and 2 parameters with only 50% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance), output format details beyond 'class names', or error handling. For a tool in a complex domain like Frida with many siblings, more context is needed for effective use.

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 50% (only 'pattern' has a description). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional pattern to filter classes', which aligns with the schema's 'pattern' parameter. However, it doesn't explain 'session_id' or provide additional context beyond what's implied. With partial schema coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate but meets the baseline.

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: 'Enumerate all loaded Java classes (Android)' with a specific verb ('enumerate') and resource ('loaded Java classes'), plus platform context ('Android'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'frida_java_find_instances' but not all Java-related tools (e.g., 'frida_java_hook_method').

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions an optional pattern for filtering, it doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other enumeration tools (e.g., 'frida_objc_enumerate_classes' for Objective-C) or when to avoid it. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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