Force-stop an Android app by package name to trigger a cold start, enabling you to test launch behavior from a terminated state.
Force-stop an app. Pair with launch_app to test a cold start.
Args: package: application id, e.g. com.example.app. serial: device serial when several are attached.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serial | No | ||
| package | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations were provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Force-stop' communicates the core destructive behavior and the cold-start pairing explains the intended effect, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when the app is not running.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the purpose and pairing are stated first, followed by a concise args list with useful examples. No sentence is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, this description covers purpose, usage context, and all parameter semantics. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: it explains package as an application id with a concrete example, and serial as only necessary when multiple devices are attached. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action (force-stop) and target (an app), and explains its relationship with launch_app for cold-start testing. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to pair this with launch_app when testing a cold start, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not list exclusion cases or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.