Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fuzzmind-frida-mcp

fuzzmind-frida-mcp

by fuzzmind
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

frida_android_shared_prefs_dump

Dump all key-value pairs from Android SharedPreferences files, or target a specific preferences file by name.

Instructions

[Android] Dump SharedPreferences key-value pairs.

Reads via Context.getSharedPreferences(). If pref_name is given, reads that specific file. Otherwise discovers and reads common preference files.

target: process name or pid (string). pref_name: optional SharedPreferences file name (without .xml).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "frida_android_shared_prefs_dump"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
pref_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool reads SharedPreferences, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or return format. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise, starts with a clear summary, and efficiently explains functionality and parameters. Could be slightly more structured but is effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and parameter use. Lacks output description but is otherwise complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 0% coverage, so description adds meaningful info: target is process name or pid, pref_name is optional and without .xml extension. This compensates for schema gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it dumps SharedPreferences key-value pairs for Android apps via Context.getSharedPreferences(). It distinguishes between specific file dump and discovery mode, and the sibling list contains different tools, so it's unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context for using the optional pref_name parameter but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_sqlite_dump or frida_ios_keychain_dump.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools