mcp-android-emulator

clear_app_data

Clear all app data for an Android application by specifying its package name.

Instructions

Clear all data for an application

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "package": "<package>"
    },
    "name": "clear_app_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`package`	Yes	Package name of the app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 states 'clear all data' which implies a destructive operation, but it does not explain that this is irreversible, whether the app must be closed, what permissions are required, or any side effects. This is 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 a single, direct sentence that leads with the verb and resource, making it efficient and easy to scan. However, it is arguably under-specified, missing important safety or context information; yet that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness flaw.

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?

This is a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter. The brief description does not outline prerequisites, expected outcomes, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to understand the full impact of invoking this 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'package' with its own description ('Package name of the app'), covering 100% of schema parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it rests at the baseline of 3.

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 'Clear all data for an application' clearly states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's primary function obvious. It is distinct from sibling tools like force_stop or clear_input, but it does not explicitly acknowledge or differentiate from those alternatives, so it stops short of a 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 does not mention situations where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate, nor does it name any sibling tool that could be used instead. This is a clear gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.