Lists the binder services and interfaces exposed by a connected Android device using ADB service list for read-only inspection.
List the device's binder services with their interfaces (service list). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serial | Yes | Device serial exactly as `adb devices` reports it | |
| analysis_project_id | No | Optional investigation to retain this tool result in. Does not prove target identity or causal relationships. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description asserts 'Read-only', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, a direct and material inconsistency about whether the call can mutate state. It also says nothing about the openWorldHint=true behavior or what happens for an offline/unauthorized device, leaving the behavioral profile actively misleading.
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 tight sentences, front-loading what is enumerated and following with the shell equivalent. Nothing extraneous, nothing buried.
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?
For a two-parameter, non-destructive list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys enough about the return shape ('with their interfaces') to call it correctly. The missing piece is the read-only claim conflicting with annotations rather than absent volume.
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 100%, with both `serial` and `analysis_project_id` fully documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format or effect.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the device's binder services with their interfaces') and anchors it to the underlying adb command (`service list`), so the agent knows exactly what the call does. Against siblings like list_adb_features, list_adb_packages, and list_adb_processes, the binder-service domain is unmistakable.
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 never says when to reach for this versus neighboring list_adb_* tools, nor does it state prerequisites such as requiring a connected device. Beyond the parenthetical shell equivalent, the agent must infer the usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.