Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
android-layout-inspector-mcp

android-layout-inspector-mcp

by Rixmerz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

List Devices

list_devices

Check which Android devices and emulators are attached and their adb state before running UI layout inspections over adb.

Instructions

List attached Android devices and emulators, with their adb state.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_devices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description is the only safety and behavior signal. The verb 'List' implies a non-mutating read-only operation, and 'adb state' hints at the output, but nothing is said about adb server prerequisites, failure modes, or side effects. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 11-word sentence that front-loads the action and object. No filler or repetition of the title beyond what is necessary.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema available, the description covers the core invocation need. It leaves out explicit usage routing and behavioral caveats, but the tool is simple enough that these are minor gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the one-line description is sufficient for an argument-free tool.

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 ('List'), a concrete resource ('attached Android devices and emulators'), and a distinctive detail ('with their adb state'). This clearly separates it from the UI-inspection siblings even without reading their descriptions.

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?

No sentence explains when to call list_devices versus alternatives, and no sibling is mentioned. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but the agent gets no explicit context or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools