List pending spawns on a Frida device to identify processes waiting for dynamic analysis or injection.
List Device.enumerate_pending_spawn().
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "frida_pending_spawn_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it only states 'list' without indicating whether this operation consumes pending spawns, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The method name suggests enumeration, but this is not clarified.
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?
While extremely short, the description is under-specified rather than concise. A single line referencing an API call does not earn its place as it provides no additional value over the tool name.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, or what the return value represents. The minimal context leaves the agent guessing.
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?
The description contains zero information about the `device_id` parameter. Given that schema description coverage is 0%, the description should have explained the parameter's purpose, default value, or usage. It fails to do so.
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 'List Device.enumerate_pending_spawn().' is essentially a tautology, restating the function call without explaining what 'pending spawn' means or distinguishing from related tools like frida_await_spawn or frida_spawn_with_options.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_await_spawn or frida_list_processes. The user is left without any context about the appropriate scenario for listing pending spawns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.