Checks Android device status, discovers ADB devices, selects a serial, and starts UiAutomator to prepare a phone or emulator for agent control without root or keyboard APK.
First use: status/discover, start once if needed, then ready. configure selects a serial. start pushes a pinned JAR and reuses/starts UiAutomator without root or keyboard APK.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | status | |
| serial | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations it adds real context: start pushes a pinned JAR and reuses or starts UiAutomator, and it notes no root or keyboard APK is required. However, for a mutating tool (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) it does not describe what state is changed on the device, whether the push is repeatable, or what happens on failure.
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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the first-use sequence, with no padding. The telegraphic style ('configure selects a serial') borders on cryptic but every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema and no annotation detail, the description would need to explain return states and failure modes. It covers sequencing and per-action meaning, which is the core need, but leaves error handling, side effects, and what 'ready' actually guarantees unstated.
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 carry the load and it largely does: status/discover are tied to first use, configure is tied to selecting a serial, and start is tied to the JAR/UiAutomator behavior. discover and status are still not individually explained, so the mapping is slightly incomplete.
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 never plainly states 'prepares the device for automation'; the purpose must be inferred from the action list and the note about pushing a JAR and starting UiAutomator. Individual actions (configure selects a serial, start pushes a pinned JAR) are concrete, but the overall verb+resource framing is missing.
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?
It explicitly prescribes a first-use sequence: run status/discover, start once if needed, then proceed to ready. That is strong ordering guidance an agent would otherwise have to guess. It stops short of specifying when not to call it or naming aua_ready/aua_doctor as the explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.