LibXposed MCP Server

check_api_compatibility

Check LibXposed API version requirements, breaking changes, and prohibited @InternalApi usage for versions 101, 102, or all to guide compatibility decisions.

Instructions

Inspect LibXposed API version requirements (@SinceApi 101 vs 102), breaking changes, and prohibited @InternalApi usage.

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": {
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "check_api_compatibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`version`	Yes	API version to check features and compatibility for ('101', '102', or 'all')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only analysis, but the description never states whether this is a static scan of code/docs, what inputs it examines beyond version, or what form the findings take. It does at least enumerate the categories of issues surfaced (requirements, breaking changes, prohibited usage).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the verb and subject. The '@SinceApi' jargon is slightly opaque without context, preventing a top score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately signals the three classes of findings returned. Minor gaps are the lack of guidance on what 'all' yields and how results are presented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum of '101'/'102'/'all' is documented in the schema itself. The description's '(@SinceApi 101 vs 102)' adds a little framing about what the versions mean but no new semantics for the 'all' option or how results differ across values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb ('Inspect') and concrete resources: LibXposed API version requirements, breaking changes, and prohibited @InternalApi usage. This clearly separates it from search/get/scaffold siblings, though the boundary with migrate_legacy_code (which also concerns API-version migration) is not drawn.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when verifying whether code is compatible with API 101/102. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_api_doc or migrate_legacy_code as alternatives for related questions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server