Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides tools for analyzing Android APK files, including parsing headers, listing DEX classes, and decoding AndroidManifest.xml.

How do I use re-apktool?

1. Click on "Deploy Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@re-apktool decode the AndroidManifest.xml from the APK" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

re-apktool

by Heretek-RE

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

re-apktool

MCP server for Android APK triage. Two backends are supported on the same MCP surface:

apktool (Java) — the canonical APK disassembler. Produces a Smali representation of every DEX class plus a decoded AndroidManifest.xml. Install: apt-get install apktool or download the jar from https://github.com/iBotPeaches/Apktool/releases.
androguard (Python) — pure-Python APK / DEX / manifest parser. Always installed (the server's hard dep). Faster to import, easier to script; less Smali-friendly than apktool.

The MCP wrappers call whichever backend is available; the check_apktool tool reports the active backend so the analyst knows which one fired.

Tools

Tool	What it does
`check_apktool`	Health check — return apktool / androguard / java availability
`parse_apk`	Open the APK, return header info (package, version, min/target SDK, per-file entry list, signature block presence)
`list_dex_classes`	Enumerate classes across every `classes*.dex` in the APK
`decode_manifest`	Return the decoded `AndroidManifest.xml` (text) plus the parsed activity / service / receiver / provider / permission lists

Related MCP server: APK Security Guard MCP Suite

Why both backends?

apktool is the gold standard for Smali and manifest decoding, but it's a Java tool the user has to install. The parse_apk + list_dex_classes + decode_manifest surface area is small enough that androguard covers ~90% of the analyst's needs (header + classes + manifest) without requiring a JRE. The MCP layer prefers apktool when present and falls back to androguard cleanly.

Install

pip install -e ./servers/re-apktool        # androguard (required)
apt-get install apktool                    # apktool (optional, java)

Run

re-apktool                                 # stdio transport (default for MCP)
python -m re_apktool                       # equivalent

Deferred to a future run

The original Explore findings called for an APK parser; this scaffolding lands it so the future Android target run has the toolchain. The Live Fire Windows-target run uses re-leak-scan + re-winedbg for the three named products; re-apktool becomes the workhorse when an Android binary is in the input.

Available Tools

5 tools

check_apktoolA

Return apktool / androguard / java availability.

Active backend is one of "apktool" (apktool jar on PATH and a JRE), "androguard" (pure-Python fallback), or "none" (server can't analyse anything).

The MCP layer prefers apktool when both are present because apktool's Smali output is closer to the canonical AOSP form. androguard is the always-on fallback for the header

class enumeration + manifest-decoding tools.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It explains backend selection and preference, but does not disclose whether it has side effects or makes external calls. It is adequately transparent for a read-only check.

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?

Description is 5 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Could be slightly more concise but is well-structured and informative.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns (availability, active backend). Sufficient for a simple check 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?

Tool has no parameters, so description need not add parameter info. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns availability of apktool, androguard, and java. It explains the active backend logic and preference, distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze APKs.

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?

Description implies usage for checking backend availability before analysis, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives mentioned, but the context is clear.

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

classify_apk_protectionA

Walk the APK + every classes*.dex for known protection patterns.

Uses the vendored data/apkid-signatures.json catalog. Returns a list of {category, evidence, evidence_offset, evidence_file} records with category-only labels ("apk_packager", "dex_obfuscator", "ssl_pinning", etc.). The category names describe observable patterns; no specific commercial product is named.

Args: path: path to the APK max_per_category: per-category match cap (default 50)

Returns::

{
  "path": "...",
  "matches": [{"category": "...", "evidence": "...",
               "evidence_offset": N, "evidence_file": "...",
               "match_pattern": "...", "id": "..."}, ...],
  "by_category": {"dex-obfuscator": 12, "ssl_pinning": 2, ...},
  "truncated": {"per_category": bool}
}

The signature table is matched against:

classes.dex string table (DEX class names + method signatures + string literals);
every lib/*.so for the native-section + string-literal categories;
the manifest's application / meta-data elements.

The implementation lives in servers/re-apktool/src/re_apktool/classify.py.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`max_per_category`	No

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the matching process against classes.dex, lib/*.so, and manifest, and describes return format. It is transparent about the tool's behavior, though it could explicitly state it is read-only.

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 well-structured with a summary, parameter details, return format, and matching targets. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a detailed return structure including fields like category, evidence, and truncation info. It covers the tool's complexity adequately, though missing edge case handling notes.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear explanations for both parameters: 'path: path to the APK' and 'max_per_category: per-category match cap (default 50)'. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool walks APK and classes.dex for known protection patterns. It distinguishes from sibling tools like decode_manifest or list_dex_classes by specifying its unique function of classifying protection patterns.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Although sibling tool names are given, the description itself lacks context for selection, which is necessary for an AI agent to choose correctly.

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

decode_manifestA

Decode the APK's AndroidManifest.xml.

Returns the manifest as text (androguard's AXMLPrinter output) plus the parsed activity / service / receiver / provider / permission lists.

When the manifest is binary-only (some closed-source protectors encrypt it) androguard fails — the analyst falls back to apktool d directly. The MCP layer surfaces the error in the response rather than silently returning a half-decoded manifest.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency. It explains the output format (text + parsed lists), and discloses error handling for binary-only manifests, stating that errors are surfaced rather than silently returning partial results. However, it does not discuss permissions, side effects, or read-only nature explicitly.

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 concise with three short paragraphs covering purpose, return value, and error handling. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the main action. Minor improvement could be made by structuring the list of returned elements more compactly.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context: what it does, what it returns, and how it handles failures. It lacks details on path format or prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an experienced analyst.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'path' with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what 'path' refers to (e.g., file path on the system), leaving the agent to infer its meaning. This lack of detail hampers correct parameter specification.

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 clearly states the tool decodes the APK's AndroidManifest.xml and returns text and parsed component lists. It uses a specific verb ('Decode') and resource ('APK's AndroidManifest.xml'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other APK analysis tasks.

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?

The description implies use when decoding the manifest, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., parse_apk). It mentions a fallback to apktool d for binary-only manifests, providing some context, but lacks clear when-not guidance.

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

list_dex_classesA

Enumerate every class in every classes*.dex in the APK.

Returns one record per class::

{
  "fqn": "com.foo.Bar",
  "access": "public",
  "method_count": N
}

plus a per-dex summary. Use this for the "what's actually compiled into this APK" view — class names are the structural fact, not the implementation. Apktool would give a Smali dump; the MCP surface sticks to the typed class graph so the analyst can ask Claude "what classes are in this APK" without dragging the full bytecode into context.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Describes output structure (fqn, access, method_count) and notes it's a read-only listing of the typed class graph. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it adequately reveals behavior.

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?

Well-structured with a code block showing output format and clear distinction from Apktool. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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?

Explains return format and use case, but lacks description of the 'path' parameter. No output schema and no annotations, so the description is incomplete for a one-param tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has one required parameter 'path' with no description in the schema or the description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain its purpose (e.g., path to APK or directory).

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?

Clearly states it enumerates every class in every classes*.dex in the APK, returning one record per class with specific fields. Distinct from sibling tools like decode_manifest or parse_apk.

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?

Explicitly says to use this for the 'what's actually compiled into this APK' view and contrasts with Apktool's Smali dump. Could be improved by naming sibling tool alternatives.

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

parse_apkA

Return a structural summary of the APK at path.

Output includes:

package / version / min+target SDK
activities, services, receivers, providers
permissions list
signature scheme (v1 / v2 / v3)
debuggable + allowBackup flags
per-file entry inventory + DEX / native lib / asset counts

Uses androguard for the manifest-backed fields, falls back to a zipfile-only walk for the entry list when androguard is missing.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the use of androguard for manifest fields and a fallback to zipfile-only walk when androguard is missing. This is good transparency about dependencies and behavior, especially in the absence of annotations.

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?

Description is 8 lines with a concise first sentence, followed by bulleted output details and a note on fallback. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Complete for a structural summary tool: covers input, detailed output fields, and fallback behavior. No output schema is needed given the bulleted list. One parameter is well-handled.

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?

Only one parameter (path) with 0% schema coverage, but the description adds value by specifying 'APK at *path*', clarifying it is a file path to an APK. This is sufficient given the single parameter.

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?

Description clearly states 'Return a structural summary of the APK at *path*' and enumerates specific fields included. It distinctly covers the full APK summary scope, differentiating it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects (e.g., decode_manifest, classify_apk_protection).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings. While the description lists output and fallback, it does not advise on which scenarios favor parse_apk over more specific tools like decode_manifest or list_dex_classes.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

5 tool updatesv0.1.0Jun 10, 2026
- First observedcheck_apktool
- First observedclassify_apk_protection
- First observeddecode_manifest
- First observedlist_dex_classes
- First observedparse_apk

Deploy Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Scored 2026-06-10 19:40 across 5 tools

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct: check_apktool checks tool availability, classify_apk_protection identifies protection patterns, decode_manifest outputs manifest XML, list_dex_classes enumerates classes, and parse_apk provides a structural summary. Some overlap exists between decode_manifest and parse_apk (both output activity/service lists), but descriptions clarify the different outputs (raw manifest vs. summary).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (check_apktool, classify_apk_protection, decode_manifest, list_dex_classes, parse_apk). No mixed conventions or irregular naming.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for an APK analysis server: checking the backend, classifying protection, decoding the manifest, listing classes, and parsing the overall structure. Each tool earns its place without being redundant or overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The set covers core APK analysis tasks (structure, manifest, classes, protection), including signature scheme and entry inventory. Minor gaps exist: no Smali decompilation or resource extraction tools, but the provided tools allow thorough structural and security analysis.

Maintenance

ActivityStale

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

Android Security Analyzer A
io.github.ako2345
MCP server for static security analysis of Android source code
Security Code Analysis Testing & QA Tools
422
ScanMalware.com URL Scanner C
com.scanmalware.mcp
MCP server for ScanMalware.com URL scanning, malware detection, and analysis.
Security Web Scraping App Automation
1282
Presend MCP Server C
io.github.presendapp
Free MCP server: 32 security & developer API tools -- WHOIS, DNS, CVE checks, IP reputation.
Security Networking & Infrastructure Developer Tools
3311
Appcircle MCP
io.appcircle
MCP server for Appcircle mobile CI/CD platform.
CI/CD & DevOps Developer Tools
2

Related MCP Servers

Apktool MCP Server
Developer Tools RAG Systems Code Execution
zinja-coder
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
An MCP server that integrates with Apktool to provide live reverse engineering support for Android applications using Claude and other LLMs through the Model Context Protocol.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-02 14:20 UTC)
16
647
Apache 2.0
APK Security Guard MCP Suite
Security Penetration Testing
il-il1
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Provides a one-stop automated solution for Android APK security analysis by integrating tools like JEB, JADX, APKTOOL, FlowDroid, and MobSF into unified MCP standard API interfaces.
Updated 9 months ago (2025-12-03 12:17 UTC)
11
-
android-reverse-engineering
Code Analysis Penetration Testing
vichhka-git
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A Python MCP server that decompiles Android APK/XAPK/JAR/AAR files and extracts HTTP APIs used by the app.
Updated 7 months ago (2026-02-05 18:19 UTC)
7
Apache 2.0
mobile-security-mcp
Security Penetration Testing Code Analysis
Serhatcck
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
An MCP server that enables AI assistants to analyze Android APK and iOS IPA files for security issues through natural language conversation, including permission auditing, secret detection, and SDK enumeration.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-06-29 09:44 UTC)
12
42
4
MIT

Appeared in Searches

APK逆向工程技术与工具