mcp-android-emulator

install_apk

Install APK files directly to Android devices or emulators by providing the local file path.

Instructions

Install an APK file on the device. Path must end in .apk and contain no shell metacharacters.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "install_apk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path to the APK file on the host

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns about shell metacharacters, implying a shell-based operation, but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting an existing app, required permissions, or success/failure behavior. This is a significant gap 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. It states the purpose first, then the key constraint, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, so the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It provides the essential path precondition but omits details about return values, error conditions, or installation side effects. For a simple install tool, this is sufficient but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes 'path' as 'Path to the APK file on the host', so coverage is 100%. The tool description adds valuable constraints beyond the schema: the path must end in .apk and contain no shell metacharacters. This enhances parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Install an APK file on the device.' The verb 'Install' and resource 'APK file on the device' are specific and unambiguous. No other sibling tool performs this action, so it is well-distinguished.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case (installing an APK) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. The path constraint ('must end in .apk and contain no shell metacharacters') gives important preconditions but not broad usage context.

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