Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
adb-mcp

adb-mcp

by FlashZ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_devices

List attached Android devices and emulators with connection state, model, and transport details so you can identify available targets before running ADB commands.

Instructions

List attached devices/emulators with state and transport.

Returns [{serial, state, is_usb, model, device, transport_id}]. is_usb is False for network devices (serials containing ':', e.g. WSA/emulators).

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": "get_devices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers useful behavioral detail: the exact return fields and the non-obvious convention that serials containing ':' are network devices (WSA/emulators) for which is_usb is False. It omits anything about error states or empty results, but the read-only nature of a list operation is self-evident.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the return-shape convention placed second where it is most useful. No filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema available, the description supplies everything needed: what is listed, what comes back, and the one non-obvious field semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, which is appropriate for a parameterless listing call.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('attached devices/emulators') plus the scope qualifier 'with state and transport'. It is clearly distinct from single-device siblings like get_state or get_device_properties, but it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (enumerate devices before acting on one), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of ordering relative to connect/disconnect/wait_for_device, and no stated alternatives. Minimum viable.

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