Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
adb-mcp

adb-mcp

by FlashZ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_top

Retrieve a one-shot CPU usage snapshot listing the top processes by CPU on a connected Android device; set the process count as needed.

Instructions

Return a one-shot top snapshot of the top count processes by CPU (raw text).

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_top"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo
serialNo

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 that output is raw text and that the call is a one-shot snapshot rather than a live stream, but says nothing about permissions, device targeting, or cost/latency.

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 tight sentence with the key qualifiers (one-shot, by CPU, raw text) front-loaded; nothing is wasted.

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 return formatting need not be re-explained, and the description correctly flags raw text. However, for a device-oriented tool the unexplained `serial` parameter and absence of usage routing leave real gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `count` (top count processes by CPU) but leaves `serial` completely undefined in both schema and description, despite it being the device-selection parameter.

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), resource (top snapshot of processes by CPU), and scope (one-shot, top count). It is fairly distinct from list_processes, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

'one-shot' hints at a snapshot versus streaming, but the description gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the obvious alternative list_processes or get_meminfo for process/memory inspection.

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