Revoke a runtime permission from a specified Android app package using ADB, so AI agents can reset denied permissions without manual device interaction.
Revoke a runtime permission (pm revoke).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serial | No | ||
| package | Yes | ||
| permission | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds genuine context by naming the underlying `pm revoke` mechanism and limiting scope to runtime permissions, but it omits permission requirements, reversibility, error behavior, and device targeting. Useful, but far from complete for an unannotated mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification for a tool with no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the tool is an unannotated mutation operation with zero parameter coverage and no stated prerequisites or side effects. For a revoke action that can affect app behavior, the description leaves too much unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description documents none of the three parameters. 'package' and 'permission' are largely self-explanatory by name, but the optional 'serial' parameter is undocumented in both places, leaving multi-device targeting behavior to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (revoke) and resource (runtime permission) and maps it to the underlying `pm revoke` command, so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling grant_permission tool or note the inverse relationship, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'runtime' qualifier hints that manifest permissions are out of scope, but the description never says so, nor does it mention prerequisites such as root access or the package being installed. The agent must infer the boundaries entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.