android-mcp

by AsmanovLev

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

fdroid_download

Download an APK from F-Droid by specifying the package name. Optionally set the output directory.

Instructions

Download an APK from F-Droid by package name.

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_name": "<package_name>"
    },
    "name": "fdroid_download"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`output_dir`	No	Output directory (default: /tmp)
`package_name`	Yes	Package name to download

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'download an APK' but does not describe network usage, file saving (only schema hints output_dir), error handling, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a download operation.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, but could be slightly improved by adding key behavioral details without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about return values (e.g., file path), error scenarios, and side effects, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., constraints on package_name format or default output_dir behavior), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Download', the resource 'APK from F-Droid', and the method 'by package name'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fdroid_search (which searches) and rustore_download (which downloads from Rustore), though it could be more explicit about the F-Droid source.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., package name must exist on F-Droid) or scenarios where it is not appropriate (e.g., if package is not found).

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