mcp-android-emulator

get_logs

Retrieve Android device logs (logcat) and apply filters by log level, tag, or keyword to isolate relevant entries.

Instructions

Get device logs (logcat). Filtering is applied in-process, never on the device shell.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`level`	No	Minimum log level
`lines`	No	Number of lines to retrieve (default: 50, max 100000)
`filter`	No	Filter logs by tag or keyword (substring match in-process)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait: filtering is applied in-process, not on the device shell. However, it omits return format, potential side effects, and permission requirements, so transparency is partial.

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?

Two short, direct sentences front-load the core purpose and add a relevant behavioral detail. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple, and parameters are fully documented, but no output schema exists. The description doesn't state what the tool returns (e.g., list of log lines) or provide usage context. Adequate for a basic getter, but with real gaps.

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%, with each parameter well-described. The description's in-process filtering note is already mirrored in the filter parameter's schema description, so it adds no new semantic info. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('device logs (logcat)'), and adds a specific detail about filtering. It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on UI interaction and device control. However, it doesn't name any alternative log tool, but none appear to exist among siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The note about in-process filtering hints at a behavioral difference, but it doesn't explain when an agent should choose this over other tools or what scenarios it's suited for.

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