Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

apk_teardown_submit

Submit an APK for static teardown analysis: upload a file or provide an HTTPS URL to enqueue a Tier 1 job covering manifest, permissions, signing, and SDK detection.

Instructions

Submit an APK for static teardown analysis. Uploads a single .apk/.xapk file (up to 400MB), or set file_url to have the server fetch it from an https:// URL instead -- exactly one of "file" or "file_url" must be given, not both. Enqueues a Tier 1 static-analysis job -- manifest, permissions, signing, SDK detection, tech stack, locales, and more. Poll the returned poll_path for the result, or set webhook_url for push delivery. Identical uploads (by sha256) within 48h return the existing job instead of re-running analysis. file_url is validated (https only, must resolve to a public address -- no loopback/private/link-local targets) and every redirect hop is re-validated the same way before being followed.

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": "apk_teardown_submit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.16.2

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 this enqueues an async job (not synchronous), that it validates file_url (https only, no loopback/private/link-local, redirect re-validation), and that deduplication occurs. It does not state whether the analysis is destructive or requires auth, but for a submission tool the async and validation behaviors are the key traits and they are well covered.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core action, then covers input modes, job type, delivery, deduplication, and URL validation. Every sentence adds information. It is slightly long, but for a tool with an empty schema and no annotations, the length is justified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the empty schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input constraints, async behavior, delivery options, deduplication, and URL safety. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the shape of the returned poll_path or the job result, but since there is no output schema, the agent would benefit from a hint about what the response contains.

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 input schema is empty (0 params), so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It does: it names 'file' and 'file_url', explains the exactly-one constraint, the 400MB limit, the https-only validation, and the redirect re-validation. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit an APK for static teardown analysis.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like apk_teardown_diff, apk_teardown_timeline, and apk_teardown_compare_ownership by focusing on the submission/enqueue action. The scope (single .apk/.xapk, up to 400MB) is explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it explains the two mutually exclusive input modes (file vs file_url), states the exact constraint that exactly one must be provided, and describes the polling vs webhook delivery options. It also explains deduplication behavior (identical sha256 within 48h returns existing job), which helps an agent decide whether to call this tool again.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools