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. It states 'resume a spawned process,' implying a mutation that changes process state, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., resumes execution), error conditions, or what 'resume' means operationally. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for the given content.

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 (a mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters, 33% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, output expectations, and context within the sibling tools. For a tool that likely resumes process execution, more information is needed to be fully helpful.

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 'pid' has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain 'device_id' or 'device_type' usage, or how parameters interact (e.g., 'device_type' enum values affect 'device_id'). With low coverage and no compensation in the description, it falls short of providing adequate meaning.

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 states the action ('resume') and target ('a spawned process'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what 'resume' entails in this context (e.g., from a paused state) or differentiate from siblings like 'frida_attach' or 'frida_detach', which are related to process interaction. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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., requires a previously spawned or attached process), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'frida_spawn' (to start) or 'frida_detach' (to disconnect). The description assumes context without explicit instructions.

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