Frida MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists modules/libraries but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, what permissions are required, if it returns structured data, or any limitations (e.g., performance impact). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized for its content, though it could benefit from additional details.

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 (a tool for dynamic analysis with Frida), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or operational context, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding.

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 meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It doesn't explain what 'session_id' is, how to obtain it, or its format. With one undocumented parameter and no compensation in the description, this falls below the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('List all loaded modules/libraries') and resource ('in a process'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like frida_list_exports or frida_list_imports by focusing on modules/libraries rather than symbols or imports/exports, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session), exclusions, or suggest other tools for related tasks like frida_list_symbols or frida_enumerate_ranges, leaving usage context unclear.

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