get_system_apk_variantRetrieve a previously created system APK variant by providing its ID, package name, and version code.
Get a previously created system APK variant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variant_id | Yes | ID of the system APK variant | |
| package_name | Yes | App package name | |
| version_code | Yes | Version code of the app bundle |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only conveys that the variant already exists and is being retrieved, but does not disclose whether this returns metadata or content, whether it is read-only, or whether there are state or permission requirements.
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 sentence with no filler or repetition. The core action and object are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. However, the description lacks behavioral context and does not clarify how this tool relates to the similarly named sibling tools, leaving the overall context incomplete for an agent deciding among them.
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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('system APK variant'), with the qualifier 'previously created' distinguishing it from creation tools. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling download_system_apk_variant or list_system_apk_variants.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_system_apk_variants or download_system_apk_variant. The description offers no context for selection, prerequisites, or why an agent would choose this tool over a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.