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 mentions the tool finds 'live instances on the heap,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify critical behaviors: whether it requires specific permissions, has performance impacts (heap scanning can be intensive), returns structured data, handles errors, or has limitations like only working with attached processes. The description is too minimal for a tool that interacts with runtime memory.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Find live instances') and includes essential context ('ObjC class on the heap' and 'iOS/macOS'). Every element earns its place, 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 (heap scanning in a dynamic instrumentation context), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical details: expected outputs (e.g., list of instance addresses), error conditions, performance implications, and dependencies like an active Frida session. For a low-level debugging tool, this leaves too much undefined.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only implicitly relates to 'class_name' by mentioning 'ObjC class,' but adds no meaning for 'session_id' (critical for Frida operations) or 'limit' (defaults to 10). Without explaining what these parameters do or their formats, the description fails to bridge the schema gap, leaving key inputs ambiguous.

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 with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('live instances of an ObjC class on the heap'), and specifies the target platforms ('iOS/macOS'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'frida_objc_enumerate_classes' by focusing on instance discovery rather than class enumeration. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'frida_java_find_instances' beyond the ObjC/Java distinction.

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 Frida session), compare it to similar tools like 'frida_java_find_instances' or 'frida_objc_enumerate_classes', or specify scenarios where it's appropriate (e.g., debugging memory issues). The platform context ('iOS/macOS') is helpful but insufficient for usage decisions.

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