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

fuzzmind-frida-mcp

by fuzzmind
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

frida_bus_post

Post a message on an attached Frida bus to communicate with connected agents or services, using optional base64-encoded data.

Instructions

Post a message on an attached Frida bus.

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": {
      "bus_id": "<bus_id>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "frida_bus_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bus_idYes
messageYes
data_base64No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only implies a prerequisite (an attached bus) but fails to mention side effects, return values, or error conditions. The agent cannot infer what happens if the bus is not attached or if posting is destructive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter descriptions, behavioral context, and usage guidance. The agent would need to infer or look elsewhere for crucial details like the requirement of an attached bus.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not. The description mentions 'message' but does not clarify the roles of bus_id, message, or data_base64. This leaves the agent without necessary parameter context.

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 'Post a message on an attached Frida bus' clearly states the action (post) and the target (message on an attached bus). It distinguishes itself from sibling bus tools like frida_bus_attach and frida_bus_get_events, which have different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like frida_script_post_message or when a bus must be attached. The description does not include any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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