AndroJack-mcp

Android 16 / API 36 Compliance Checker

android_api36_compliance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check Android 16 targetSdk 36 compliance for orientation/resizability, predictive back, and 16 KB page requirements, with layout guidance and a checklist.

Instructions

Android 16 / targetSdk 36 (required by Play for new apps and updates since Aug 31, 2026): orientation and resizability locks are ignored on ≥600dp; predictive back; 16 KB pages. Topics: compliance, layouts, checklist, predictive back, page size.

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": "android_api36_compliance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	No	Topic: 'compliance', 'layouts', 'checklist', 'predictive back', 'page size'
`refresh`	No	Resend content already sent in this session

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.0Oct 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / refresh

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Resend content already sent in this session",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv1.7.1Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain substance (orientation/resizability locks ignored on ≥600dp, predictive back, 16 KB pages) but says nothing about how content is returned per topic or that 'refresh' resends session content beyond the schema's own wording.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is compact and front-loads the compliance requirement, but the trailing 'Topics: compliance, layouts, checklist, predictive back, page size' duplicates the schema's topic parameter nearly verbatim, so that sentence does not earn its place.

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 and no annotations gap, the description should clarify what the tool returns (static guidance text per topic? a checklist?) and how refresh interacts with it. It omits that, leaving an agent unsure of the response shape for a two-parameter 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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description restates the same topic list already present in the schema enum, adding no new semantics (e.g., what happens with no topic, or default behavior).

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 names a specific resource and scope (Android 16 / targetSdk 36 compliance), and the name dates it against the sibling android_api17_compliance. The action is implicit rather than stated as a verb — it reads as a topic-based lookup rather than a 'checker' — but an agent can tell what it retrieves.

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?

It gives useful context ('required by Play for new apps and updates since Aug 31, 2026') that implies when the tool matters, but it never states when to use this versus overlapping siblings like android_play_policy_advisor, android_large_screen_guide, or android_api_level_check. Usage must be inferred.

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