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

fuzzmind-frida-mcp

by fuzzmind
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

frida_system_function_call

Invoke native functions in a target process by providing memory address, return type, and argument types and values via GumJS SystemFunction.

Instructions

Call a native function using GumJS SystemFunction.

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>",
      "address": "<address>",
      "return_type": "<return_type>",
      "arg_types": "<arg_types>",
      "args": "<args>"
    },
    "name": "frida_system_function_call"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
addressYes
return_typeYes
arg_typesYes
argsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects, safety concerns, required permissions, or return behavior, which is critical for a tool that likely modifies process memory.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices essential information. While brevity is valued, the content is too minimal to be truly helpful.

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 complexity of the tool (5 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or usage context, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 5 required parameters with zero description coverage. The description adds no meaning to target, address, return_type, arg_types, or args, leaving the agent unable to interpret how to use them correctly.

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 tool calls a native function using GumJS SystemFunction, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool frida_native_function_call, which likely performs a similar action.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_native_function_call. The description lacks any context about when this tool is appropriate or when it should be avoided.

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