AndroJack-mcp

Android On-Device AI / AICore Guide

android_ondevice_ai

Read-onlyIdempotent

Access Android on-device AI guidance for AICore, Gemini Nano, ML Kit, smart reply, repository patterns, and AppFunctions to build offline or hybrid features.

Instructions

On-device AI: AICore / Gemini Nano via ML Kit GenAI, ML Kit, repository pattern for on-device vs cloud, and AppFunctions (expose app functions to agents; experimental). Topics: overview, setup, smart reply, ml kit, appfunctions.

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_ondevice_ai"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	No	Topic: 'overview', 'setup', 'smart reply', 'ml kit', 'architecture', 'appfunctions'
`refresh`	No	Resend content already sent in this session

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.0Oct 18, 2026

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', 'setup', 'smart reply', 'ml kit', 'architecture'"New value: +"Topic: 'overview', 'setup', 'smart reply', 'ml kit', 'architecture', 'appfunctions'"

First observedv1.7.1Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only a small behavioral detail (AppFunctions is 'experimental'); it does not disclose return format, caching, or pagination behavior on top of the schema's refresh parameter.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the subject matter and then the topic set, with no filler. The trailing 'Topics:' enumeration is slightly redundant with the schema but still helps scanning.

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, closed-world, zero-required-parameter guide tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke it. It is incomplete on a key point: why an agent should pick this over android_official_search or the other topical guides.

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 documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the topic options but also omits 'architecture', which the schema topic description lists, creating a minor mismatch that could steer topic selection.

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 subject area (on-device AI: AICore/Gemini Nano via ML Kit GenAI, ML Kit, repository pattern, AppFunctions) and enumerates the covered topics, so an agent knows what content it returns. It lacks an explicit verb ('get guide for') and does not differentiate itself from siblings like android_official_search or the other *_guide tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as android_official_search or android_kmp_guide. The topic list implies coverage, but no condition, prerequisite, or routing guidance is given.

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