Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
re-apktool

re-apktool

by Heretek-RE
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

parse_apk

Parse an APK file to extract its structural summary: package info, components, permissions, signatures, flags, and file inventory. Useful for quick APK triage and analysis.

Instructions

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.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "parse_apk"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools