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 what the tool does but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like whether it's read-only, what permissions are required, potential side effects, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what format the exports are listed in, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity of Frida tools and the lack of structured documentation, this description leaves too many gaps.

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 'module' has a description). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'session_id' represents or provide additional context about the 'module' parameter. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'exported functions from a module', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'frida_list_imports' or 'frida_list_symbols', which prevents 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 like 'frida_list_imports' or 'frida_list_modules', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an active Frida session. It's a basic statement of function with no contextual usage information.

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