AndroJack-mcp

Android API Level Reference

android_api_level_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Map an Android API level, version name, or codename to features and minSdk warnings; pass 'all' for the full table.

Instructions

Map an API level, version name, or codename to features and minSdk warnings. Pass 'all' for the full table.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "api_level_or_name": "<api_level_or_name>"
    },
    "name": "android_api_level_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_level_or_name`	Yes	API level number (e.g. '26'), version name (e.g. 'Android 14'), codename (e.g. 'Tiramisu'), or 'all'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.1Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the returned content (features, minSdk warnings) and the bulk 'all' mode, but does not expand on output format or scope of the feature data.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a concrete special-case instruction. No filler or redundancy.

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, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what gets mapped and what is returned. It stops short of describing the shape or volume of the feature/warning results, which is the only remaining gap.

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% for the single required parameter, so the schema already documents accepted formats. The description only echoes the 'all' option and clarifies that it yields the full table, a marginal add beyond the enum-less schema.

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?

States a specific verb (map) and resources (API level, version name, codename) plus the outputs (features, minSdk warnings), so the tool's job is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as android_api36_compliance or android_api17_compliance, which also concern API levels.

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?

'Pass "all" for the full table' gives one concrete usage cue, and the mapping framing implies a reference-lookup use case. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to the compliance siblings that could compete for the same request.

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