android-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mobile_app

Manage Android apps via ADB: install APKs, start or force-stop apps by package name, uninstall, and list installed packages.

Instructions

Manage Android apps via ADB: install APK, start app by package, force-stop, uninstall, or list installed packages.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "mobile_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	No	Path to APK file (required for install)
`action`	Yes	Operation
`serial`	No	ADB device serial (optional)
`package`	No	Package name (required for start/force-stop/delete; optional filter for list)
`return_screen`	No	Capture screen after action (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses basic actions (install, start, etc.) but fails to mention side effects, permissions, error handling, or return values. Adequate but not detailed.

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 concise, using a single sentence to list key actions. It is front-loaded with 'Manage Android apps via ADB' as a summary, but could be better structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return formats (e.g., list output), prerequisites, or how actions interact with parameters like return_screen.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely lists action types. No details on parameter formats or behaviors.

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 it manages Android apps via ADB with specific actions: install, start, force-stop, uninstall, list. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fdroid_download or mobile_activity_manager by specifying ADB and common app management operations.

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 lists actions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for app management via ADB but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., ADB connection) and when not to use it.

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