Check whether optional Termux and Shizuku backends are configured and which permissions are granted, so you know if privileged shell access is available. No automatic privilege fallback is performed.
Report optional Termux and Shizuku backends and permissions. No automatic privilege fallback is performed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds a key behavioral detail: 'No automatic privilege fallback is performed.' This discloses that the tool will not attempt to downgrade or switch privileges, which is useful for callers to understand its limits. However, it doesn't elaborate on what specific permissions or backends are checked.
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 two sentences, providing the essential information without any filler. It is concise and well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding the important behavioral note.
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 description names the key elements of the report (backends and permissions) but does not specify the exact format or level of detail. Since there is no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, though an agent might want to know whether the report is a list, a status flag, or a detailed breakdown. Still, it covers the core context.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema correctly reflects that with an empty properties object. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, which is appropriate.
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 the tool's purpose: to report optional Termux and Shizuku backends and permissions. The verb 'Report' is specific, and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from the many action-oriented 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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others. It implies that it should be used to check backend availability and permissions before relying on them, but this is not stated directly. The note about no automatic privilege fallback hints at usage context but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.