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

fuzzmind-frida-mcp

by fuzzmind
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

frida_load_debug_symbols

Load debug symbols from a file (e.g., dSYM) into a target process to enable symbolicated stack traces and improved analysis.

Instructions

Load debug symbols from a file (e.g. dSYM) into the target.

target: process name or pid (string). path: path to the debug symbol file to load.

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_load_debug_symbols"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description only mentions the parameters without disclosing side effects, permissions needed, or what happens after loading symbols. The description is minimal for a mutation 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 brief: two sentences plus two parameter descriptions. No waste, every word adds value.

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?

Lacks output schema and does not explain what happens after loading symbols, e.g., whether symbols are immediately available or need further steps. Missing prerequisite context (e.g., target must be a running process).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: clarifies that 'target' is a process name or PID, and 'path' is the path to the debug symbol file, which the schema does not convey beyond type string.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Clearly states the action (load) and resource (debug symbols from file into target). The description distinguishes this tool from many sibling tools by its specific function, but could be more explicit about the context (e.g., 'into a running Frida session').

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no context about required session state (e.g., target must be attached).

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