resolve_deeplinkResolve any URI or Android intent action to identify the app that would handle it. Get the target app for a deeplink before launching.
Which app would open this URI (or intent action such as android.settings.WIFI_SETTINGS)?
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | ||
| device | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully implies this is a non-destructive resolution operation ('which app would open') rather than an actual launch, but it does not disclose details such as whether a device must be connected or what happens for unresolvable URIs.
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?
The description is a single, tight sentence with no filler. It leads with the core question and immediately conveys the tool's value, making it easy for an agent to process quickly.
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?
The core purpose is clear and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not required from the description. However, the unresolved device parameter and lack of context about how this tool interacts with the device ecosystem leave a noticeable completeness gap.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives some semantics for the uri parameter and provides a concrete intent-action example, but it completely omits the optional device parameter, leaving its purpose and effect unexplained.
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?
The description clearly states that the tool's job is to identify which app would handle a given URI or intent action. The wording 'would open' effectively distinguishes it from actually opening the deeplink, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
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?
The question-like phrasing implies the tool is used when you need to know the handler app for a URI before opening it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like open_deeplink, list_app_deeplinks, or system_intent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.