Skip to main content
Glama
HalidSaglam

saglitzdesign-mcp

by HalidSaglam

Audit Android Ui

audit_android_ui
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit an Android project directory for Material 3 and Android app design compliance. It reads AndroidManifest.xml, resource XML, and Kotlin sources, runs six rules, and returns prioritized findings with fixes.

Instructions

Audit an Android app's UI against Material 3 and android-app-design: point it at the project (or module) directory and it reads AndroidManifest.xml, resource XML and Kotlin, infers whether the folder is an Android project from those plus Compose/Android imports, and runs six rules. Configuration: windowOptOutEdgeToEdgeEnforcement="true" (deprecated and ignored on Android 16), enableOnBackInvokedCallback="false" (the predictive-back opt-out), and a values/themes.xml or values/colors.xml with no values-night/ file among the surfaces read. Compose: a Color(0x…) literal, fontSize = N.sp, and an androidx.compose.material.Button-style Material 2 import (not material3, not material.icons). Every configuration rule stays silent when no Android signal was found, and the report says whether the platform was inferred and from what, so a silence can be read as the gate rather than as a result. It reads source and does not measure anything: it builds nothing, starts no emulator, takes no screenshot, and no finding is or can be a rendered-output, contrast, TalkBack or Play review result. Returns markdown plus structured output: findings (rule, severity, message, fix, doc, file, line — configuration findings carry no line, since a manifest attribute has no useful source position), a severity summary, a scan block saying how much was actually read, and a machine-readable notVisible list of what it structurally could not check, every entry of it derived from a run. Directory only — there is no snippet mode, because configuration is the backbone of this audit and a snippet carries none of it. A missing path, a path that is a file, or a code argument is returned as an error result, not as an empty audit. Pair with get_design_doc("material-3") and get_design_doc("android-app-design") for the guidance behind the rules.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoNot supported by this tool, and rejected with an explanation if passed. There is no snippet mode: the platform verdict and half the rules are read from AndroidManifest.xml and resource XML, and a pasted snippet carries none of them. Pass `path` instead.
pathNoThe Android project or module directory to audit — the folder holding `AndroidManifest.xml`, `res/` and Kotlin sources. Required. Absolute paths are strongly preferred: a relative path is resolved against the server's working directory, which is usually not your project folder.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scanYesWhat the scan reached. Read it before trusting any absence claim: a capped scan looked at part of the project, and the configuration rules are gated on Android signals this scan may never have opened.
summaryYesCounts by severity. Always agrees with `findings` — it is derived from the same list.
findingsYesEvery finding, in the order the markdown report lists them.
notVisibleYesWhat this audit structurally could not check, one limitation per entry. Read it as a peer of `findings`: silence on a subject named here is this tool's reach, not a clean result. Nothing any of these tools reports is measured.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Addedv0.28.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that it builds nothing, starts no emulator, takes no screenshot, and cannot produce rendered-output, contrast, TalkBack, or Play review findings. It also explains that silence can mean the Android-project gate rather than a passing result and that the report exposes notVisible items derived from the run.

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?

The description is long but front-loaded with the purpose and then proceeds logically through configuration, Compose signals, behavioral limits, output shape, error handling, and companion docs. It earns its length for a complex tool, though there is minor redundancy around snippet mode and configuration being the backbone that keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with high complexity, the description covers the input contract, platform inference, configuration-sensitive rules, output format, notVisible semantics, error behavior, and related documentation. There is no critical missing context an agent would need to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that path refers to a project or module directory, that absolute paths are preferred, that code is rejected rather than ignored, and that missing paths or file paths produce an error result rather than an empty audit.

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?

The description opens with a specific action and target: 'Audit an Android app's UI against Material 3 and android-app-design' and explains the mechanism by reading AndroidManifest.xml, resource XML, and Kotlin. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling audits like audit_apple_ui and audit_generic_design by platform and audit basis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear invocation context: point it at a project or module directory, directory-only, no snippet mode, a code argument is rejected, and a missing path or file path returns an error. It also suggests pairing with get_design_doc for rule guidance, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions beyond the snippet limitation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/HalidSaglam/saglitzdesign-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server