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 logging and modification capabilities, but lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on app stability), error handling, or output format. For a hooking tool with potential destructive effects, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists key features. Every word earns its place, 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 (hooking with modification capabilities), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address safety, output format, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 57%, with 4 of 7 parameters having descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it hints at 'log calls, modify args/return values,' which loosely relates to 'log_args', 'log_return', and 'modify_return' parameters. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context to 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 tool's purpose: 'Hook a Java method (Android). Log calls, modify args/return values.' It specifies the verb (hook), resource (Java method), and platform (Android), and outlines key capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'frida_hook_function' or 'frida_objc_hook_method' beyond mentioning Java/Android context.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'frida_hook_function', 'frida_intercept_method', 'frida_objc_hook_method'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description 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.