Frida MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose critical traits like potential side effects (e.g., method execution may modify state), error handling, performance impact, or return format. The phrase 'Call an Objective-C method' implies a mutation, but specifics like permissions or rate limits are omitted, leaving gaps for safe agent use.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function and context. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (calling methods with potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective invocation.

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% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions), so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details beyond the schema. It mentions 'class or instance' which hints at 'instance_handle' and 'static' usage, but doesn't explain their interplay or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does partial work, but the description offers minimal extra value.

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 ('Call an Objective-C method') and target ('on a class or instance'), specifying the platform context ('iOS/macOS'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'frida_java_call_method' by focusing on Objective-C, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'frida_objc_hook_method' beyond the verb 'call' vs. 'hook'.

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 Frida session), compare to siblings like 'frida_objc_hook_method' for hooking instead of calling, or specify scenarios (e.g., debugging, testing). The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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