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 describes the action (listing devices) and return format (device ID, name, type), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. For a read-only tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all available Frida devices') and includes essential details (scope and return values) without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete: it states the action, scope, and return format. However, it lacks behavioral details like error cases or performance considerations, which would be beneficial for full context. For a low-complexity tool, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add param details, which is appropriate, but it compensates by explaining the return values, enhancing understanding beyond the empty schema. Baseline is 4 for zero-param tools when description provides useful context.

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 specific action ('List all available Frida devices') and resource ('devices'), distinguishing it from siblings like frida_get_device_info or frida_get_process_info by focusing on enumeration rather than detailed information retrieval. It explicitly mentions the scope ('local, USB, remote') and return values ('device ID, name, and type'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for discovering available devices before operations like attaching or spawning, as seen in sibling tools (e.g., frida_attach, frida_spawn), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or specific contexts are provided, leaving usage inferred from the tool's purpose rather than direct guidance.

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