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

fuzzmind-frida-mcp

by fuzzmind
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

frida_rust_module_compile

Compile Rust code into a Frida GumJS RustModule at runtime inside a target process for dynamic analysis.

Instructions

Compile a GumJS RustModule inside the target.

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>",
      "rust_code": "<rust_code>"
    },
    "name": "frida_rust_module_compile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
rust_codeYes
symbolsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, whether the tool modifies state, or what happens upon compilation (e.g., success/failure indicators). The word 'compile' implies a transformation but the impact is unclear.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence. It contains no unnecessary words and conveys the core action efficiently.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, parameter descriptions, and annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently. It does not explain what compilation returns, what constraints exist, or how errors are handled. For a compilation tool, more details are necessary.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'target' is mentioned in the description as location, but not defined. 'rust_code' and 'symbols' are not explained. The agent cannot infer what values are valid or how they affect behavior.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Compile') and the resource ('GumJS RustModule') and specifies location ('inside the target'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool frida_cmodule_compile, which has a similar purpose but for C modules. The name includes 'rust' which helps, but explicit differentiation would improve clarity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_cmodule_compile or frida_compiler_build. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when it is appropriate to compile a Rust module versus other compilation approaches.

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