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 for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain what 'hooking' entails (e.g., intercepting method calls, modifying behavior), potential side effects, security implications, or expected outcomes. For a complex tool with mutation capabilities, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension while still conveying the essential action and target.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how hooks behave at runtime, error conditions, or platform-specific considerations. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered for effective agent use.

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 only 20% (only 'method_name' has a description), and the tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain what 'session_id' represents, the format of 'class_name', or the purpose of 'log_args' and 'log_return' flags. With 5 parameters and low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the documentation 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 action ('Hook') and target ('Objective-C method') with platform context ('iOS/macOS'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'frida_hook_function' or 'frida_java_hook_method', which would require more specific comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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_hook_function' or 'frida_intercept_method' from the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active Frida session), specific use cases, or limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.

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