Frida MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Kill') but doesn't explain critical traits: whether this requires elevated permissions, if it's destructive (likely yes, but unstated), potential side effects (e.g., process termination without cleanup), or error conditions (e.g., invalid PID handling). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates the primary purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, permissions), parameter usage beyond 'pid', and expected outcomes or errors. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation in a complex environment like Frida.

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 low (33%), with only 'pid' documented. The description adds no parameter details beyond implying 'pid' is used for killing, which the schema already covers. It doesn't explain 'device_id' or 'device_type' (e.g., their roles in targeting processes on different devices), failing to compensate for the coverage gap. The baseline is 3 due to the single documented parameter.

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 ('Kill') and target ('a process by PID'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like frida_detach or frida_resume by focusing on termination rather than disconnection or continuation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 process first), exclusions (e.g., not for system processes), or related tools like frida_detach for graceful disconnection. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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