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

fuzzmind-frida-mcp

by fuzzmind
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

frida_file_read

Read a file from a target process's sandboxed filesystem view. Specify the process name or PID and file path to retrieve content as UTF-8 text or hex for binaries.

Instructions

Read a file from the target process's filesystem view.

target: process name or pid (string). path: file path to read. Uses NSData inside the target (respects sandbox). Returns content as UTF-8 text or hex for binary data. Capped at 64KB.

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>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "frida_file_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses using NSData (sandboxed), return format (UTF-8 or hex for binary), and size cap (64KB). Could mention error cases, but sufficient for a read operation.

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?

Extremely concise: four sentences covering purpose, parameters, mechanism, and limitations. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with action.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return format and size limit. It addresses the tool's scope adequately but could mention when to use it over other file tools, which is minor.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining 'target' as process name/pid and 'path' as file path, plus output details. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 the action 'Read a file from the target process's filesystem view,' specifying the verb 'read' and the resource 'file' in a distinct context. It differentiates from siblings like write or list tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions using NSData and sandbox, it doesn't state exclusions or conditions like file size limits or binary handling, which would help choose between similar tools.

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