Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
adb-mcp

adb-mcp

by FlashZ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_package_info

Retrieve structured Android app package details, including version, SDK targets, installer, install and update times, plus granted runtime permissions by package name.

Instructions

Return structured package info: versionName, versionCode, targetSdk, minSdk, installer, firstInstall/lastUpdate times, and granted runtime permissions.

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": "<package>"
    },
    "name": "get_package_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serialNo
packageYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses the read-only nature via 'Return' and enumerates the returned data, which is genuine behavioral context. However it says nothing about permission requirements, whether the package must be installed, or rate/device-serial considerations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the return fields with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values (though it does helpfully preview them). The remaining gap is the undocumented inputs at 0% coverage and absent read-only/permission semantics for a tool with no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Two parameters exist at 0% schema description coverage, yet the description never mentions them. The meaning of 'package' (package name) and 'serial' (target device) is left entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 (Return) and resource (structured package info) and enumerates the exact fields returned. It is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like launch_package or clear_app_data, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_packages or app_status.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_packages (batch listing) or app_status. The agent must infer context entirely on its own.

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