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

fuzzmind-frida-mcp

by fuzzmind
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

frida_process_attach_module_observer

Attach a module observer to a Frida target process for a specified duration and event limit to monitor module loading events.

Instructions

Call GumJS Process.attachModuleObserver() for a bounded window.

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_process_attach_module_observer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
duration_secondsNo
event_limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description gives no behavioral details such as whether the operation is blocking, what events it produces, or side effects. The term 'bounded window' is undefined.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Critical information is missing, so brevity is detrimental.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description fails to explain return values, parameter roles, or how it fits into the larger Frida workflow. It is completely inadequate.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to parameters like target, duration_seconds, or event_limit. The agent cannot infer what values to provide.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states it calls a specific API for 'a bounded window', but it does not explain what a module observer is or what attaching it does. It distinguishes only by referencing the API name, but among siblings like frida_process_attach_thread_observer, the differentiation is minimal.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 (e.g., thread observer), nor any prerequisites or context for usage.

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