Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
re-ios

re-ios

by gyh20062008-commits
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

frida_find_process

Locate an iOS process by name, PID, or bundle ID on USB, local, or remote devices for Frida dynamic analysis.

Instructions

Find a process by name, PID, or bundle identifier.

Args: target: Process name, PID, or bundle ID 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": "frida_find_process"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
device_idNo
device_typeNousb

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior. It explains parameters but does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., process ID, name) or what happens if the target is not found. This is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a clear args list format without extraneous text. Every line adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks information on return values and error cases, which would be helpful for a complete understanding.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains 'target' as process name, PID, or bundle ID, and gives defaults for 'device_type' and 'device_id'. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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?

The description clearly states the action 'Find a process' and the resources (name, PID, or bundle identifier). It distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_list_processes which lists all processes.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_list_processes for listing all processes. The description does not specify prerequisites or context.

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