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. While 'search' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether it's safe to use on live processes, what happens when the limit is reached, or what format the results take. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a memory operation tool.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 memory search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'session_id' represents, how results are returned, whether the search is destructive, or any performance considerations. The context demands more completeness for safe and 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 only 25% (only the 'pattern' parameter has a description). The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, so it adds no semantic value beyond what the sparse schema provides. The baseline is 3 since the schema does exist, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('search for strings') and target ('in process memory'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'frida_memory_scan' or 'frida_memory_read', which also operate on process memory.

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. With many sibling tools that also interact with process memory (frida_memory_scan, frida_memory_read, frida_enumerate_ranges), there's no indication of when string searching is appropriate versus other memory operations.

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