Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
adb-mcp

adb-mcp

by FlashZ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

stat_file

Retrieve file metadata—size, modification time, permissions, UID, and GID—for a path on a connected Android device via ADB.

Instructions

Return stat info for a device path: {size, mtime, perms, uid, gid} (best-effort).

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": {
      "remote": "<remote>"
    },
    "name": "stat_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
remoteYes
serialNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The '(best-effort)' caveat is a genuinely useful disclosure about reliability, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, what happens on a missing path, or any permission/device requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the output fields compactly with zero filler. Well-sized for the operation, though extremely terse.

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-value explanation is not strictly required, and the description does name the fields. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the missing parameter semantics and error/behavioral details leave the definition only minimally complete.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. 'Device path' loosely hints at 'remote', but 'serial' (device selector) is entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 and resource ('Return stat info for a device path') and enumerates the returned fields, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_files or file_exists. It is not tautological and an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as file_exists or list_files, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the appropriate 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