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 the write operation but doesn't mention critical aspects like required permissions (e.g., memory access rights), potential side effects (e.g., crashing the target process), or error conditions. This is inadequate for a low-level memory manipulation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core 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?

For a complex, potentially destructive memory write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information about behavioral traits (e.g., safety, side effects), return values, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use this tool correctly.

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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'session_id' parameter or provide context for 'address' and 'data' formats).

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 ('Write bytes') and target ('to a specific memory address'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'frida_memory_read' or other memory manipulation tools, which would be needed for a score of 5.

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_memory_read' or 'frida_memory_alloc', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active session). There's only an implied context of memory manipulation without explicit usage boundaries.

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