Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
adb-mcp

adb-mcp

by FlashZ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_packages

Retrieve installed Android package names from a device. Filter by substring, show only third-party or enabled apps, and optionally include APK paths.

Instructions

List installed package names. filter = case-insensitive substring. only_third_party excludes system apps; include_paths returns {package, apk}.

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": "list_packages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filterNo
serialNo
only_enabledNo
include_pathsNo
only_third_partyNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries more burden. It mentions that include_paths changes the return shape to {package, apk}, which is useful behavioral detail. However, it does not clarify default behaviors of bools (e.g., only_enabled defaults to false) or potential side effects, though it's a read-only listing.

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?

Three concise sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the main action and then parameter semantics. Very efficient.

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?

Output schema exists, so return format needn't be fully described, but the description adds a return shape note. It covers key parameters but omits serial and only_enabled semantics. Given no annotations, some gaps remain, but overall sufficient for a list tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains filter (case-insensitive substring), only_third_party (excludes system apps), and include_paths (adds apk path). It doesn't explain serial or only_enabled, but covers the most ambiguous ones.

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?

States a specific verb 'List' and resource 'installed package names', clearly distinguishing from siblings like list_files or list_processes. The scope 'installed' 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the description (e.g., filter to narrow results, only_third_party to exclude system apps), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives is given. Adequate for a simple list tool.

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