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

fuzzmind-frida-mcp

by fuzzmind
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

frida_run_on_thread

Execute JavaScript code on a specific thread within a target process using thread ID.

Instructions

Execute JavaScript on a specific thread in the target process.

Uses Process.runOnThread() to schedule execution.

target: process name or pid (string). thread_id: OS thread id (from frida_enumerate_threads). js_code: JavaScript code to execute on the thread.

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>",
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>",
      "js_code": "<js_code>"
    },
    "name": "frida_run_on_thread"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
thread_idYes
js_codeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose side effects, blocking behavior, return values, error handling, or required permissions. It only states the action without behavioral details.

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: one sentence for purpose, one line for method, and clear parameter descriptions. Every sentence is necessary and no wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Description covers what the tool does and its parameters, but lacks information about return values, blocking nature, potential errors, and prerequisites beyond the noted thread enumeration. With no output schema or annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter meaningfully: target (process name/pid), thread_id (from frida_enumerate_threads), js_code (code to execute). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it executes JavaScript on a specific thread using Process.runOnThread(), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other script execution tools like frida_eval, but the thread-specific focus provides some distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions dependency on frida_enumerate_threads but does not provide context for appropriate use cases or when not to use it.

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