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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the process starts in suspended state (not running), returns a PID (output format), and requires frida_resume to activate. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, potential side effects, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action and output. The second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 process-spawning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and relationship to frida_resume. However, it lacks details about error handling, security implications, or what happens to the spawned process if not resumed. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3 since the schema does most of the work, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 specific action ('Spawn a new process in suspended state') and resource (process), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly mentioning the complementary tool 'frida_resume'. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the suspended state.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Spawn a new process in suspended state') and when to use an alternative ('Use frida_resume to start it'), clearly differentiating it from other process-related tools like frida_attach or frida_kill.

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