mcp-android-emulator

launch_app

Launch any Android application by its package name, with automatic validation against Android naming conventions.

Instructions

Launch an application by its package name (e.g., com.android.chrome). Package name is validated against the Android package naming convention.

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": "launch_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`package`	Yes	Package name of the app (e.g., com.android.chrome)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the package name is validated against Android naming conventions, but does not mention failure behavior (e.g., app not installed), side effects, or permissions. This is partial transparency.

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 only two sentences, with the action stated upfront and no redundant information. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose and validation, but lacks important context such as what happens if the app is not installed or any side effects. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 already provides a detailed description and pattern for the 'package' parameter, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds little beyond repeating the example and validation concept, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 tool's action: 'Launch an application by its package name.' It uses a specific verb ('launch') and resource ('application'), and distinguishes it from siblings like install_apk and force_stop. The example package name adds clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The context is clear: use when you need to launch an app by its package name. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., install_apk if the app is not installed) or preconditions like app installation.

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