Frida MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some potential overlap exists between 'attach_to_process' and 'create_interactive_session' (both involve attaching to processes), and between 'get_device', 'get_local_device', and 'get_usb_device' (all retrieve device information). The descriptions help clarify differences, but an agent might initially confuse these pairs.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structures (e.g., 'enumerate_processes', 'get_session_messages', 'spawn_process'). There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 14 tools, this server is well-scoped for Frida's dynamic instrumentation domain. The count covers essential operations like device management, process control, and session handling without being excessive, ensuring each tool has a clear role.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides strong coverage for Frida's core workflows, including device enumeration, process management, and interactive scripting. A minor gap is the lack of tools for detaching from processes or terminating sessions, which agents might need to work around, but overall, the surface supports key operations effectively.
Average 3.2/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'Returns: Information about the spawned process' without explaining what that information includes, whether spawning is synchronous/asynchronous, what permissions are required, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool that likely creates system processes, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.
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?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences, but the second sentence about return values is somewhat redundant given the existence of an output schema. However, it's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, earning a high score for efficiency despite potential under-specification.
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 this is a process-spawning tool with no annotations, 3 parameters, and multiple sibling execution tools, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (reducing need to explain returns), the description fails to address critical context: how this differs from other execution tools, what 'spawn' entails operationally, security implications, or typical use cases. For a potentially powerful system tool, this leaves too many questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (program, args, device_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Spawn a program' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's quite generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_in_session' or 'create_interactive_session'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'spawn' means in this context versus other execution-related tools.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_in_session', 'create_interactive_session', or 'kill_process'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for spawning versus other execution methods, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. 'Attach' implies a connection or interaction, but it doesn't disclose if this is for read-only monitoring, debugging, requires specific permissions, affects process state, or has side effects like pausing execution. Critical details for safe tool invocation are missing.
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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a potentially complex action like 'attach to a process', the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'attach' entails, what the expected outcome is, or any prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing session). For a tool that likely involves system-level operations, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (pid and device_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'ID' refers to 'pid', which is already clear from the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Attach to a process by ID' states a clear verb ('Attach') and resource ('process'), but it's vague about what 'attach' means operationally. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'create_interactive_session' or 'execute_in_session', which might involve similar process interactions. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for debugging, monitoring, or control purposes, or how it relates to siblings like 'create_interactive_session' or 'enumerate_processes'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'Information about the device', which is vague and doesn't cover aspects like required permissions, error handling, or data format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, using two sentences efficiently. However, the second sentence ('Returns: Information about the device') is redundant given the presence of an output schema, slightly reducing its conciseness by not earning its place fully.
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 low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or error cases, which are important for a tool with no annotations, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the 'device_id' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a device by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_local_device' or 'get_usb_device', which might retrieve devices through different criteria, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
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 such as 'enumerate_devices' for listing devices or 'get_local_device' for local device retrieval. It only states what the tool does without context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Returns: Information about the local device' without specifying what information is returned, format, potential errors, or any behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires permissions, or has rate limits.
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?
The description is appropriately concise with two brief sentences that get straight to the point. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with return information. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, for a tool in a context with many sibling device/process tools, it should better differentiate itself and provide more behavioral context since no annotations are present.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is correct for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get the local device' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_device' or 'enumerate_devices'. The description is vague about what 'local device' means in this context compared to other device-related tools.
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 'get_device' or 'enumerate_devices'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools that handle devices or processes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Find a process by name' implies a read-only search operation, but it doesn't disclose key traits such as whether it returns multiple matches, handles partial names, includes performance impacts, or requires specific permissions. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Find a process by name' directly conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool's complexity (a search operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer usage in context with siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters ('name' and 'device_id') with details like case-insensitivity and smart selection. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 'Find a process by name' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('process'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'enumerate_processes' (which lists all processes) and 'kill_process' (which terminates processes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_process_by_name' itself, which is the tool's name, making it slightly less specific than a perfect 5.
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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'enumerate_processes' for broader searches or 'get_device' for device-specific operations, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('Information about the USB device') but lacks details on what information is included, error handling (e.g., if no USB device is found), side effects, or performance considerations. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and a brief note on returns. It avoids unnecessary details, but the second sentence ('Returns: Information about the USB device') could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.
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 has no parameters, an output schema exists (which should document return values), and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on usage scenarios, error cases, or how it differs from siblings, leaving gaps in completeness for effective agent use.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly implies no inputs are required. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Get the USB device connected to the system'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource (USB device) but lacks detail on what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve details, list devices, check status). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'enumerate_devices' by focusing on USB, but not clearly from 'get_device' or 'get_local_device'.
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., system must have a USB device connected), exclusions (e.g., not for remote devices), or comparisons to siblings like 'enumerate_devices' (for listing all devices) or 'get_device' (possibly for generic device retrieval).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'kills' a process, implying a destructive operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'Returns: Status information' is vague and doesn't clarify what constitutes success or failure.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a return statement. Both sentences are relevant, with no wasted words, though the return statement could be more informative to improve utility without sacrificing conciseness.
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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and mentions a return, but fails to address safety concerns, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to operate effectively in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'smart selection' for device_id or provide examples). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
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 ('kill') and target ('a process by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'resume_process' or 'spawn_process' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit comparison that would warrant a perfect score.
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. With siblings like 'resume_process' and 'spawn_process' available, the description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions a return value ('Status information') but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., success/failure, error conditions, or post-resume state). It lacks details on permissions, side effects, or system-specific behaviors like what 'resume' means operationally.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a return statement. It avoids unnecessary words, but the return note could be more informative (e.g., specifying output schema existence). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and full schema coverage for parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., what 'resume' does, error cases, or dependencies on other tools like 'enumerate_processes'). The current description leaves gaps in operational understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'pid' is required and 'device_id' is optional with smart selection, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Resume') and target ('a process by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'kill_process' or 'spawn_process' beyond the basic verb, missing specific context about what resuming entails in this system.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the process must be paused), related tools like 'enumerate_processes' to find IDs, or exclusions (e.g., cannot resume already running processes). The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool connects to a remote server and makes it available for future requests, which implies a persistent configuration change. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the server is unreachable), side effects, or how this interacts with other tools. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Connect to a remote Frida server') and follows with the outcome ('make it available for future requests'). There's no wasted verbiage or 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 that there's an output schema (not provided in details but indicated as present), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a configuration tool with no annotations and three parameters, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate as a starting point but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three parameters (address, alias, set_as_default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 when no param info is added in the description.
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's purpose: 'Connect to a remote Frida server and make it available for future requests.' It specifies the verb ('connect') and resource ('remote Frida server'), and indicates a persistent effect ('available for future requests'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_local_device' or 'get_usb_device' which might handle different device types.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a running Frida server), exclusions (e.g., not for local devices), or comparisons to siblings like 'enumerate_devices' or 'get_device'. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the return value (session ID and session information) and hints at a workflow with 'execute_in_session', it lacks critical details such as whether this operation requires specific permissions, what happens if the process is already in a session, or any rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the return value usage, and the third clarifies the return content. It's front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. Minor improvements could include integrating the return details more seamlessly.
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 has an output schema (which covers return values) and 100% schema description coverage for inputs, the description doesn't need to detail parameters or return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions). The description is adequate but leaves gaps in usage and transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain 'process_id' or 'device_id' further). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 ('create an interactive REPL-like session') and resource ('with a process'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'attach_to_process' or 'spawn_process' by focusing on session creation rather than process attachment or spawning. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives.
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?
The description implies usage context by mentioning the returned session ID can be used with 'execute_in_session', suggesting a workflow. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'attach_to_process' or 'spawn_process', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the return format and structure, which is valuable, but doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like performance characteristics, error conditions, or whether the list is real-time vs. cached. It's adequate but has clear gaps.
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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a detailed breakdown of the return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema implied by the return description), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns in detail. However, it could improve by addressing usage context relative to siblings, slightly reducing completeness.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the output. This meets expectations for a parameterless tool, earning a high baseline score.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all devices connected to the system'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_device' or 'get_local_device', which prevents a perfect score.
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 'get_device' or 'get_local_device'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of process information with specific fields (pid, name), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits, leaving some gaps for a read operation.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear return value specification. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (implied by the return description), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, covering essential context without unnecessary detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional parameter 'device_id' with its description. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 specific action ('List all processes') and resource ('processes running on the system'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_process_by_name' (which filters) and 'kill_process' (which modifies). It provides a complete picture of what the tool does.
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?
The description implies usage for listing processes but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_process_by_name' (for filtering) or 'enumerate_devices' (for device listing). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it retrieves AND clears messages (implying mutation/destructive action), specifies the temporal scope ('since the last call'), and mentions error conditions ('session not found'). It could add more about permissions or rate limits but covers essential behavior.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear returns section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavior, and error conditions, leaving structured details to the schema while adding valuable context about message clearing and session dependency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single parameter 'session_id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.
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 specific action ('Retrieve and clear messages') and resource ('messages sent by persistent scripts in a session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on processes, devices, or session execution rather than message retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'messages sent by persistent scripts in a session,' suggesting it's for monitoring script output. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about its specific application scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool executes code dynamically in a target process, uses Frida's JavaScript API, and includes details about the 'keep_alive' parameter's persistence behavior and message management. However, it lacks information on error handling, execution timeouts, or security implications, preventing a perfect score.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. The second sentence adds necessary context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying prerequisites and tool relationships, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (dynamic code execution in sessions), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and key behavioral aspects but could improve by addressing error scenarios or execution limits, leaving minor gaps for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only briefly mentioning the 'keep_alive' parameter's effect on script persistence. No additional syntax, format, or usage examples are provided, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 specific action ('Execute JavaScript code') and resource ('within an existing interactive Frida session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_interactive_session' (which creates sessions) and 'get_session_messages' (which retrieves messages). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'within an existing interactive Frida session' and references the prerequisite tool 'create_interactive_session'. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., for session creation or message retrieval), providing clear context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![frida-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rmorgans/frida-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rmorgans/frida-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![frida-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rmorgans/frida-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rmorgans/frida-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rmorgans/frida-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server