mobile-security-mcp

by Serhatcck

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct platform (Android vs iOS) and a specific security analysis function (e.g., permissions, secrets, manifests, frameworks). There is no overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a platform prefix (android_ or ios_) followed by a descriptive noun phrase. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
12 tools cover both Android and iOS comprehensively without redundancy. The count is well-scoped for the domain of mobile security analysis.
Completeness4/5
Core areas (manifest, permissions, secrets, configurations, frameworks, API endpoints) are covered. Minor gaps include lack of dynamic analysis or network security checks, but static analysis is thorough.
Average 3.7/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 2, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic extraction and categorization, without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, performance, or requirements. It does not indicate whether it modifies files or needs special permissions.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word is relevant with no unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality but lacks details on return format, error handling, or dependencies. It adequately describes the risk categorization but could be more complete.
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?
The description does not add meaning beyond the input schema, which already fully describes the single parameter 'ipa_path' as an absolute path. With 100% schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool extracts privacy permission usage descriptions from an IPA's Info.plist, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from Android tools but does not explicitly differentiate from 'ios_entitlements_checker' sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ios_entitlements_checker'. The description only states what it does, lacking usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It discloses extraction and categorization but omits behavioral details like side effects, input validation, error handling, or whether it modifies the APK.
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?
Single sentence effectively communicates the core action and key feature (dangerous permissions). No wasted words, front-loaded with primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input (one parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. However, it lacks details on output format or structure, which would be helpful for an AI agent.
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 covers 100% of parameters; description repeats 'APK' context but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema's 'Absolute path to the APK file to analyze'.
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?
Description clearly states the tool extracts and categorizes permissions from an APK, highlighting dangerous ones. The verb 'extracts' and resource 'permissions' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like android_api_extractor or apk_manifest_analyzer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusion criteria are mentioned. Sibling tools are present but no differentiation advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It states parsing and extraction but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, requires any special permissions, or has side effects. 'Highlights insecure configurations' implies output but no further behavioral details.
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?
Two efficient sentences with no redundant information; the essential purpose and outputs are stated upfront.
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 parse tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers its core functionality and extracted data. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or how it differs from siblings like ios_entitlements_checker, leaving minor gaps.
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% (one parameter with description). The description's 'Absolute path to the IPA file' matches the schema's description, adding no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description clearly states the tool parses Info.plist from an IPA and lists specific extracted items (bundle ID, version, URL schemes, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ios_entitlements_checker or ios_permissions_checker which focus on different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; no mention of when not to use it or what other tools might be more appropriate for different analysis needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes two scanning layers but omits side effects, auth needs, output format, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.
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?
Description is two sentences, clearly structured with Layer 1 and Layer 2, no fluff, front-loaded with primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description should explain return values. It only says 'scans' but not what is returned or reported. The two-layer description is adequate for purpose but omits output details.
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%, so baseline 3 applies. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema parameters (ipa_path, min_length) and does not mention them.
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?
Description clearly states it scans IPA for hardcoded secrets and API keys, specifying two distinct layers: text resource files and binary extraction. This differentiates it from siblings like ios_binary_strings which only handles binary extraction.
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?
Description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. The two-layer description implies a comprehensive scan, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only describes the extraction and filtering function without mentioning potential side effects, resource requirements, or performance characteristics. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not stated.
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?
The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately specifies the security relevance. No unnecessary words; every part serves a purpose.
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 tool with 3 well-documented parameters and clear output expectations (list of filtered strings), the description is largely sufficient. It covers the input, the operation, and the filtering criteria. Lacking an output schema, a brief mention of the return format would improve completeness, but it is still adequate.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing specific pattern categories (e.g., 'AWS/Firebase/Google credentials') that elaborate on the filter enum's options, helping the agent understand what each filter value targets beyond the schema's brief descriptions.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('extracts') and resource ('printable strings from an iOS app binary'), and explicitly mentions security-relevant patterns it filters for, such as URLs, API keys, and credentials. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ios_secrets_scanner, which may have a different focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ios_secrets_scanner or ios_frameworks_detector. It lacks explicit context for optimal usage, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when it should be invoked.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description details the extraction process (parsing specific fields, pattern scanning) but does not mention side effects, permissions, whether the IPA is modified, or limitations such as requiring a decompressed IPA. It provides moderate transparency but has gaps.
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?
The description is two sentences: first states the purpose, second details what is extracted. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain the return format. It lists extracted data but does not specify how it is returned (e.g., structure, keys). This is a notable gap. Otherwise, it covers the input and process adequately.
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% with one parameter (ipa_path) described as 'Absolute path to the IPA file'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states it extracts Google and Firebase configuration from an IPA by parsing GoogleService-Info.plist and scanning other plist and JSON files. It distinguishes itself from siblings like android_google_services (platform-specific) and ios_secrets_scanner (broader scope).
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?
The description does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for extracting Google services configuration, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or what distinguishes it from similar tools like ios_secrets_scanner.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions extraction and highlighting of security flags but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it discuss dependencies, performance, or limitations. It adequately describes functionality but lacks full transparency.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the main action, second provides specifics. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains what is extracted and highlights security-relevant flags. However, it could optionally mention the output format or that it returns parsed data.
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% with one parameter (apk_path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description of 'Absolute path to the APK file to analyze.' Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Parses', the resource 'AndroidManifest.xml from an APK', and lists specific extracted items (package info, activities, etc.) and security flags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apk_permissions_checker and android_secrets_scanner by focusing on manifest structure.
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?
The description implies usage when analyzing AndroidManifest.xml but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as apk_permissions_checker or android_secrets_scanner. No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions using 'codesign' and detecting 'dangerous entitlements', but doesn't state explicitly that the tool is read-only or any side effects. The analysis purpose is implied.
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?
Two efficient sentences that front-load the purpose and key examples with no redundant information.
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?
Given the simple tool (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the essence well. Could mention if output is a list of found entitlements, but not critical.
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 already describes 'ipa_path' as absolute path. The description adds no extra parameter 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?
The description explicitly states 'Extracts and analyzes entitlements embedded in the iOS app binary' and gives examples like 'get-task-allow', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools that analyze permissions, frameworks, etc.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, though the description implies iOS app binary analysis. Alternatives (siblings) are listed in context but not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavior (list, map, highlight) but does not mention whether the tool modifies anything, required permissions, or output format. Adequate but could be more explicit.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains input and output behavior. It could mention the return format, but overall it is sufficient.
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% with one parameter 'ipa_path' described as 'Absolute path to the IPA file to analyze'. The description does not add meaning beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists third-party frameworks from an IPA, maps them to categories, and highlights privacy-relevant SDKs. The verb 'Lists' and resource 'third-party frameworks' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like ios_permissions_checker and ios_entitlements_checker.
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?
The description implies the tool is used for analyzing iOS app frameworks, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like ios_binary_strings. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description is the sole source. It explains the extraction sources (google-services.json, resources.arsc, strings.xml) but does not disclose return format, side effects, or whether the APK is modified. The description is adequate but lacks some behavioral details.
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?
The description is only two sentences, efficiently covering the main purpose and optional behavior with no superfluous words. It is well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the extraction process but does not specify the output format for the default case (only mentioning structured output for smali_folder). It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., need for apktool). Somewhat incomplete for an extraction tool.
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?
Both parameters have schema descriptions, and the description adds meaningful context: smali_folder enables structured strings.xml parsing. This goes beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 3.
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?
The description clearly states it extracts Google and Firebase configuration from an APK, using a specific verb ('extracts') and resource ('APK'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like android_secrets_scanner or apk_manifest_analyzer by focusing on Google services.
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?
The description implies usage by detailing the extraction process and the optional smali_folder, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like android_api_extractor or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses decompilation and smali extraction but does not mention side effects, permissions, or potential impacts. It is adequate but minimal.
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?
The description is a single, well-front-loaded sentence that uses every word to convey purpose and output. No wasted text.
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?
Given no output schema, the description covers purpose, input parameters, and output format adequately. It lacks detail on the structure of the extracted endpoints list but is sufficient for a focused tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining that 'smali_folder' skips apktool step and clarifying output formats, going beyond the schema alone.
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?
The description clearly states the tool decompiles an APK and extracts Retrofit/OkHttp endpoints, with two output formats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apk_manifest_analyzer or apk_permissions_checker.
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?
The description implies usage for APK endpoint extraction but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool runs strings or scans text files, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not describe the output format, potential performance implications, or confirm that the tool does not modify the APK, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and efficiently explain both usage modes. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers scanning behavior but omits what the tool returns (e.g., list of found secrets, file paths). A more complete description would include output format to help agents process results.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral difference between providing and omitting smali_folder, and implicitly ties min_length to the strings command. This extra context merits a 4.
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?
The description clearly states 'Scans an APK for hardcoded secrets and API keys.' This specifies a unique verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like android_api_extractor or apk_permissions_checker, which focus on API extraction or permission analysis respectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the smali_folder parameter: without it, the tool runs strings on binary files; with it, it scans specific XML and asset files. This provides clear context for optional usage, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like ios_secrets_scanner for iOS APKs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mobile-security-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Serhatcck/mobile-security-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Serhatcck/mobile-security-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mobile-security-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Serhatcck/mobile-security-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Serhatcck/mobile-security-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Serhatcck/mobile-security-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server