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 but only states the action without detailing traits like whether it's read-only, potential side effects, performance implications, or output format. It lacks context on what 'imported functions' means in the Frida framework, leaving behavioral aspects unclear.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential action.

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 complexity of Frida tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'imported functions' entail, how results are returned, or any limitations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With 50% schema description coverage (only 'module' has a description), the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'session_id' parameter. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline score of 3 applies, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('imported functions in a module'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'frida_list_exports', which likely lists exported functions instead of imported ones, missing an opportunity for clearer sibling distinction.

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_exports' or 'frida_list_modules', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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