Analyze an Android APK to extract and categorize requested permissions, highlighting dangerous permissions that access sensitive user data or device features.
Extracts and categorizes permissions requested by an APK. Dangerous permissions (those that grant access to sensitive user data or device features) are highlighted separately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apk_path | Yes | Absolute path to the APK file to analyze |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the output categorization behavior (dangerous permissions separated). However, it omits whether the tool is read-only (implied but unstated), what happens if the APK is malformed, and what the response contains beyond the categorization.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the dangerous-permission detail as a follow-up clarification. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the shape of the key output (categorized, with dangerous ones flagged). A mention of failure modes or return structure would make it fully complete, but it is adequate as-is.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'apk_path' is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource ('Extracts and categorizes permissions requested by an APK') plus the notable behavior of highlighting dangerous permissions. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like apk_manifest_analyzer and ios_permissions_checker, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus apk_manifest_analyzer (which likely also parses manifests) or the iOS counterpart. The agent must infer selection from the name alone; no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.