Skip to main content
Glama

resume_process

Resume a paused process by specifying its ID, enabling continued execution for debugging or analysis within the Frida MCP server environment.

Instructions

Resume a process by ID.

Returns:
    Status information

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pidYesThe ID of the process to resume.
device_idNoOptional ID of the device where the process is running. Uses smart selection when omitted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'resume_process' tool, decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration. It resolves the device, calls device.resume(pid), and returns success status or raises an error.
    @mcp.tool()
    def resume_process(
        pid: int = Field(description="The ID of the process to resume."),
        device_id: Optional[str] = Field(
            default=None,
            description="Optional ID of the device where the process is running. Uses smart selection when omitted.",
        ),
    ) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Resume a process by ID.
    
        Returns:
            Status information
        """
        try:
            device = _resolve_device_or_raise(device_id)
            device.resume(pid)
    
            return {"success": True, "pid": pid}
        except Exception as e:
            raise ValueError(f"Failed to resume process {pid}: {str(e)}")
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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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