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 action ('push/upload') which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or performance characteristics (e.g., file size limits). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, 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 complexity of a file upload operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error conditions), parameter usage, and expected outcomes, which are essential for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in a dynamic environment.

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% (two parameters have descriptions, two do not). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the meaning of 'device_id' or 'device_type', or provide examples for paths. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline score of 3 reflects that the description doesn't compensate for the gaps but doesn't worsen them 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 action ('push/upload') and resource ('a file to the device'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'frida_pull_file' (which presumably downloads files), though the distinction is implied through the verb choice.

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. While the description implies it's for file transfer to a device, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device connectivity), constraints, or when to choose other tools like 'frida_pull_file' for reverse operations.

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