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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Change memory protection/permissions' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify critical details like required permissions, potential side effects (e.g., crashing if invalid), or error handling. For a low-level memory tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational 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: 'Change memory protection/permissions for a memory region.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This makes it easy to parse quickly, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (low-level memory operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, prerequisites, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly. The high schema coverage helps, but overall context is insufficient for such a sensitive operation.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), so the schema does most of the work. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify format for 'address' or valid values for 'protection'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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: 'Change memory protection/permissions for a memory region.' It specifies the verb ('change') and resource ('memory protection/permissions'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like frida_memory_alloc, frida_memory_read, or frida_memory_write, which handle different memory operations.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like frida_memory_alloc (for allocation) or frida_memory_write (for writing). This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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