Skip to main content
Glama
VIKAS9793

AndroJack-mcp

by VIKAS9793
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Android 17 / API 37 Compliance

android_api17_compliance
Read-onlyIdempotent

Review Android 17 and targetSdk 37 breaking changes—static final reflection, local network, SMS OTP, large-screen opt-out, MessageQueue, NPU, Handoff—with checklists to keep apps compliant.

Instructions

Android 17 / targetSdk 37 breaking changes: static final reflection, ACCESS_LOCAL_NETWORK, SMS OTP delay, large-screen opt-out removed (games exempt), lock-free MessageQueue, read-only System.load, NPU declaration, Handoff. Topics: overview, checklist, static final, local network, sms otp, large screen, messagequeue, npu, handoff.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoTopic: 'overview', 'checklist', 'static final', 'local network', 'sms otp', 'large screen', 'messagequeue', 'npu', 'handoff'
refreshNoResend content already sent in this session

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / refresh
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Resend content already sent in this session",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Previous value: -"Topic: 'overview', 'checklist', 'static final', 'local network', 'sms otp', 'npu', 'handoff'"New value: +"Topic: 'overview', 'checklist', 'static final', 'local network', 'sms otp', 'large screen', 'messagequeue', 'npu', 'handoff'"
  2. First observedv1.7.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered externally. The description adds nothing behavioral — no indication of content depth, session-caching behavior, or what happens when an unknown topic is passed — so it clears the (lower) annotated bar only barely.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One compact sentence plus a topic list, with the version and breaking-change scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though the trailing topic enumeration is partly redundant with the schema and could have carried routing guidance instead.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps: it doesn't say what a call returns (migration steps, checklist items, doc links) or how large the payload is, which matters for a topic-driven knowledge tool.

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%, and the topic list in the description merely duplicates the enum-style list already in the topic parameter's schema description. With the schema doing all the work, the baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond it.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the subject matter (Android 17 / targetSdk 37 breaking changes) and enumerates its coverage areas, so an agent can infer it is a version-specific compliance reference. However, it never states the action or output form — no verb such as 'returns' or 'explains' — and differentiation from android_api36_compliance rests entirely on the version number, not on any stated scope difference.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to consult this before upgrading targetSdk, nor how it relates to android_api36_compliance, android_api_level_check, or android_official_search. An agent must guess which compliance/reference sibling is appropriate.

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