Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
re-ios

re-ios

by gyh20062008-commits
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

frida_list_processes

List running processes on a Frida device to identify active applications for reverse engineering or debugging.

Instructions

List running processes on a Frida device.

Args: device_type: Device type: 'usb', 'local', or 'remote' (default: 'usb') device_id: Specific device ID (optional)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "frida_list_processes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
device_idNo
device_typeNousb

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions device_type and device_id but does not describe error handling, permission requirements, or behavior when the device is not connected.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 low complexity and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but does not specify the return format (e.g., process IDs and names). It leaves the agent to infer the output structure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the device_type options ('usb', 'local', 'remote') and the optional device_id. However, it could be more specific (e.g., enum values).

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 'List running processes on a Frida device' with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('processes'). It sufficiently distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_find_process or frida_device_info.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context is implied but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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