Frida MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'finds functions' but doesn't describe what happens operationally: e.g., whether this is a read-only search, if it requires an active session, potential performance impacts, or error conditions. The mention of 'ApiResolver' hints at a specific Frida feature but lacks detail on behavior beyond the basic action.

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: 'Find functions matching a pattern using ApiResolver. Supports wildcards.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful detail without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 Frida tools (dynamic instrumentation), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error handling, and leaves key parameters unexplained. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to guide effective 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 33% (only the 'query' parameter has a description), so the description must compensate. It adds some value by mentioning 'wildcards' and implying pattern matching, which aligns with the query parameter's example. However, it doesn't explain the 'session_id' or 'limit' parameters, leaving gaps in understanding their roles and constraints.

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: 'Find functions matching a pattern using ApiResolver. Supports wildcards.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('functions'), and mechanism ('ApiResolver'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'frida_list_exports' or 'frida_list_symbols', which appear related, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It mentions 'ApiResolver' and 'wildcards', but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools in the Frida ecosystem, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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