Un servidor de protocolo de contexto de modelo que crea un proyecto de Android que permite un flujo de trabajo continuo con proyectos de Android en Visual Studio Code utilizando extensiones como Cline o Roo Code.
build - Construir proyecto de Android
folder (cadena, obligatoria): la ruta completa de la carpeta actual en la que se encuentra el proyecto de Android
test - Ejecutar prueba unitaria
folder (cadena, obligatoria): la ruta completa de la carpeta actual en la que se encuentra el proyecto de Android
instrumentedTest - Ejecutar prueba instrumentada
folder (cadena, obligatoria): la ruta completa de la carpeta actual en la que se encuentra el proyecto de Android
Al usar uv , no se requiere ninguna instalación específica. Usaremos uvx para ejecutar mcpandroidbuild directamente.
Alternativamente puedes instalar mcpandroidbuild a través de pip:
pip install mcpandroidbuildDespués de la instalación, puedes ejecutarlo como un script usando:
python -m mcpandroidbuildRelated MCP server: MCP Server Demo
Añade a tu configuración de Claude:
"mcpServers": {
"mcpandroidbuild": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["mcpandroidbuild"]
}
}"mcpServers": {
"mcpandroidbuild": {
"command": "python",
"args": ["-m", "mcpandroidbuild"]
}
}La herramienta MCP mcpandroidbuild cuenta con la licencia MIT. Esto significa que puede usar, modificar y distribuir el software libremente, sujeto a los términos y condiciones de la licencia MIT. Para más detalles, consulte el archivo de LICENCIA en el repositorio del proyecto.
Build the Android project in the folder
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | The full path of the current folder that the Android project sits |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but is too brief. It only says 'Build the Android project' without disclosing side effects, permissions, build variant, or outcome. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand behavioral impact.
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?
The description is very concise at one sentence. However, it lacks any structural formatting (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability for a simple tool.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify what 'build' entails (e.g., compilation steps, output artifacts, success/failure indicators). This leaves the agent underinformed.
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%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. This meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Build' and resource 'Android project', and implies using the folder parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'test' and 'instrumentedTest' by focusing on building rather than testing. However, it lacks specificity on build type (e.g., debug/release) or output.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling names imply use for building, while tests are for testing, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run instrumented test for the Android project in the folder
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | The full path of the current folder that the Android project sits |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'run instrumented test', but does not explain side effects (e.g., starting an emulator), whether it requires a device, or if it modifies the project. The description is too brief to inform the agent about potential impacts.
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?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description fails to mention what happens after the test runs (e.g., results, logs, on failure behavior). For a test tool, this information is important, making the description incomplete.
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?
There is only one parameter 'folder', and its schema description already covers 'The full path of the current folder that the Android project sits'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Run', the resource 'instrumented test', and the context 'for the Android project in the folder'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'build' and 'test' by specifying 'instrumented test', implying a difference from unit tests or build actions.
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 implies usage when instrumented tests need to be run, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'test' or 'build'. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run test for the Android project in the folder
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | The full path of the current folder that the Android project sits |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Run test', omitting details like side effects (e.g., compilation, output generation), resource usage, or whether it's destructive. Agent lacks critical info for safe invocation.
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?
One succinct sentence with no redundancy. While brief, it is appropriate for a simple tool; front-loads the key action and context.
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?
Given no output schema and sibling tools, description is incomplete. Does not specify what type of tests are run, expected output, or behavior differences from 'instrumentedTest'. Agent lacks sufficient context for robust decision-making.
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 covers the sole parameter 'folder' fully (100%). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, earning baseline score 3.
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?
Description clearly states action ('Run test') and resource ('Android project in the folder'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'instrumentedTest', which could cause confusion about which test type is executed.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'instrumentedTest'. Context implies it's for running tests, but no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
buildinstrumentedTesttestScored across 3 tools
The three tools have mostly distinct purposes: building, running tests, and running instrumented tests. However, 'test' and 'instrumentedTest' could be slightly ambiguous as instrumented tests are a subset of tests, but the descriptions clarify this distinction.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear, descriptive verbs ('build', 'test', 'instrumentedTest'). There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and readable.
With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for an Android project domain, which typically involves more operations like linting, debugging, or emulator management. While the tools cover core build and test workflows, the scope seems limited.
The tool surface is significantly incomplete for Android development. It lacks essential operations such as cleaning, linting, deploying, debugging, or managing dependencies, which are common in this domain and could lead to agent failures in broader tasks.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Selise Blocks Cloud integration
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Model Context Protocol server for Studex tools, notifications, and profile integrations
