Frida MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format (PID, name, parameters) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires device connection, permissions, potential side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool interacting with devices, 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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste: first states the action and scope, second specifies the return format. Well-structured and front-loaded with 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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and return format but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and parameter details. Given the complexity of device interaction tools, it should provide more operational context.

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% (device_id has description, device_type lacks description). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With moderate schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'running processes on a device', specifying what information is returned (PID, name, parameters). It distinguishes from siblings like frida_list_applications (apps vs processes) and frida_get_process (single vs all processes), though not explicitly named.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_list_applications or frida_get_process. The description implies it's for listing all processes, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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