re-ios

dynamic_check_cryptid

Check the cryptid encryption status of loaded Mach-O binaries at runtime via Frida. Provide the target app's bundle ID to determine if binaries are encrypted or decrypted.

Instructions

Check encryption status (cryptid) of loaded Mach-O binaries at runtime.

Uses Frida to enumerate all loaded modules and read their cryptid field.

Args: target: Bundle ID of the target app device_type: Device type: 'usb', 'local', or 'remote' (default: 'usb') device_id: Specific device ID (optional)

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": "dynamic_check_cryptid"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`target`	Yes
`device_id`	No
`device_type`	No	usb

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry full burden. It mentions Frida but fails to disclose prerequisites (Frida server, debugger, root), potential side effects (app interruption), or whether it modifies state. Behavioral traits like requiring USB connection are only implied via parameters.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is front-loaded with purpose and method, followed by parameter details. Each sentence contributes value, though the args section mirrors documentation style. No superfluous text.

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 no output schema and absence of annotations, description lacks critical information about return format (list of modules? cryptid values?) and prerequisites (Frida server on device). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so description compensates well by explaining target as bundle ID, device_type with allowed values and default, and device_id as optional. Adds meaning beyond schema but could include format or constraints for device_id.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool checks encryption status (cryptid) of loaded Mach-O binaries at runtime, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from static analysis siblings like 'check_encryption' by emphasizing runtime behavior (Frida enumeration).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description implies runtime usage with Frida but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over static alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.