Skip to main content
Glama

spawn_process

Launch programs on mobile or desktop devices for runtime analysis and reverse engineering using Frida's dynamic instrumentation capabilities.

Instructions

Spawn a program.

Returns:
    Information about the spawned process

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
programYesThe program or application identifier to spawn.
argsNoOptional list of arguments for the program.
device_idNoOptional ID of the device where the program should be spawned. Uses smart selection when omitted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the 'spawn_process' tool. This handler function is decorated with @mcp.tool(), which registers it with the FastMCP server. It resolves the target device, prepares command-line arguments if provided, and uses Frida's device.spawn() method to spawn the process, returning the PID on success.
    @mcp.tool()
    def spawn_process(
        program: str = Field(description="The program or application identifier to spawn."),
        args: Optional[List[str]] = Field(
            default=None, description="Optional list of arguments for the program."
        ),
        device_id: Optional[str] = Field(
            default=None,
            description="Optional ID of the device where the program should be spawned. Uses smart selection when omitted.",
        ),
    ) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Spawn a program.
    
        Returns:
            Information about the spawned process
        """
        try:
            device = _resolve_device_or_raise(device_id)
    
            argv = None
            if args:
                argv = list(args)
                if not argv or argv[0] != program:
                    argv.insert(0, program)
    
            pid = device.spawn(program, argv=argv)
    
            return {"pid": pid}
        except Exception as e:
            raise ValueError(f"Failed to spawn {program}: {str(e)}")
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.

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