LibXposed MCP Server

search_libxposed

Find LibXposed APIs, classes, methods, and concepts by keyword across api, helper, service, lint, example, and migration modules, with optional module filtering.

Instructions

Search across all LibXposed modules (api, helper, service, lint, example, migration) by keyword, class name, method name, or concept.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_libxposed"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Search term, e.g., 'hook', 'Invoker', 'RemotePreferences', 'onPackageReady', 'SinceApi', 'XSharedPreferences'
`module`	No	Optional module scope to filter search results (default: 'all')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses search scope and optional module filtering, and 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe result limits, ranking, case sensitivity, or return behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It efficiently communicates scope, modules, and searchable dimensions.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could better explain how results relate to sibling tools, but no critical invocation detail is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the module enum. The description adds the searchable dimensions (class name, method name, concept) but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('LibXposed modules'), enumerates the module scope, and lists searchable dimensions (keyword, class name, method name, concept). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling documentation, guide, scaffold, migration, and compatibility tools.

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?

Implies use for discovery across LibXposed modules, but does not explicitly say when to use this versus get_api_doc, get_helper_guide, or other siblings, nor when not to use it. No alternative routing or exclusions are provided.

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

Deploy Server