Frida MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool unloads a script but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is destructive (likely yes, as unloading implies removal), what permissions are required, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, or what happens on failure (e.g., error handling). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Unload') and efficiently conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation in a dynamic environment like Frida scripting.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'script_id' documented as 'Script ID from frida_inject_script'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Unload') and target ('a previously injected script'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like frida_detach or frida_kill that might also terminate script-related processes, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific unloading operation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a script must be currently loaded), exclusions, or relationships to siblings like frida_detach (which might detach from a process) or frida_inject_script (which injects scripts). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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