android-mcp

by AsmanovLev

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

mobile_activity_manager

Launch Android activities by specifying intent action, package, class, data URI, and extras.

Instructions

Start an Android activity by intent (package/class, action, data URI, extras).

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": "mobile_activity_manager"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	No	Intent action (e.g., android.intent.action.VIEW)
`extras`	No	JSON string of extra key-value pairs
`serial`	No	ADB device serial (optional)
`package`	No	Package name
`data_uri`	No	Data URI for the intent
`class_name`	No	Full class name (e.g., com.example/.MainActivity)

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 bears full responsibility. It implies starting an activity but does not disclose side effects (e.g., brings app to foreground), failure modes (e.g., activity not found), or requirements (e.g., ADB connection). This is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence is very concise, but omits the 'serial' parameter, which may lead to confusion. Still, the core purpose is clear with minimal waste.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks context on how the tool fits into a workflow, what inputs are critical, or what return behavior to expect. It is minimal for practical agent use.

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% with each parameter described. The description lists four of the six parameters in parentheses but adds no new details beyond the schema. 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 'Start' and resource 'Android activity by intent', listing key intent components. It distinguishes from siblings like mobile_button or mobile_type, but could be more explicit about what an Android activity is in context.

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 like mobile_app (if different), prerequisites (e.g., device unlocked), or when not to use it. The description only states functionality.

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