Perform a static security audit of an Android APK by checking debuggable, backup, and cleartext flags, dangerous permissions, and unguarded exported components.
Static security audit of an Android APK: debuggable/backup/cleartext flags, dangerous permissions, and exported components (activities/services/receivers/providers) lacking guards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Static' usefully signals the APK is not executed and the scan is non-mutating, but it says nothing about return format, whether the file must be a valid/signed APK, runtime cost, or what happens on a malformed input.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited checklist — dense and waste-free. The noun-phrase fragment style (no explicit subject) and stray trailing newline keep it from 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?
For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is inspected but not what the agent gets back (findings list? severity? counts?), nor any failure modes. Adequate to call it, but thin for interpreting the result.
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 0% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate. Saying the audit is 'of an Android APK' strongly implies path is a filesystem path to an APK file, but the description never confirms this or mentions format, relative vs absolute paths, or extension requirements.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Static security audit of an Android APK') and enumerates the exact checks performed (debuggable/backup/cleartext flags, dangerous permissions, unguarded exported components). The Android-APK scope implicitly separates it from generic siblings like scan_strings or scan_binary_mitigations, though no sibling is named.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when the target is an APK rather than a generic binary. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over full_audit or scan_binary_mitigations, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.