Android Screenshot MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation2/5
The two tools have overlapping purposes with unclear boundaries. Both are focused on taking Android screenshots, with 'connect_and_screenshot' implying connection and capture, while 'screenshot' can also handle connections if needed. This creates ambiguity about when to use each tool, as their descriptions suggest similar functionality with minor variations in connection handling.
Naming Consistency4/5The tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern and use clear verbs ('connect_and_screenshot', 'screenshot'). While the naming is technically consistent, the inclusion of 'connect_and_' in one name versus not in the other creates a minor deviation in structure, but overall the naming is readable and follows a predictable style.
Tool Count3/5With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its purpose of Android screenshot management. While it covers basic screenshot functionality, the limited tool count may restrict more advanced operations or device management tasks, placing it in the borderline range where the scope seems underdeveloped.
Completeness2/5The tool set is significantly incomplete for Android device interaction. It only provides screenshot capabilities without covering essential operations like listing devices, managing connections, handling multiple devices, or performing other common ADB commands. This creates gaps that could lead to agent failures when broader device control is needed.
Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions connecting and taking a screenshot but doesn't describe what happens during connection (e.g., pairing process, authentication needs, potential errors), the screenshot format, or any rate limits. For a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on behavioral aspects like connection process and screenshot output. It covers purpose and usage well but doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations and output schema, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., pairingPort and pairingCode are needed together). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Connect to an Android device and take a screenshot') and resource ('Android device'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from the sibling 'screenshot' tool, which might handle already-connected devices, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use when no device is connected'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'screenshot' tool that likely handles connected devices. This gives clear context and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the connection behavior (uses existing ADB or wireless with device info) and implies a write operation (saving a screenshot), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no outputPath is specified. It adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the connection behavior. No wasted words, well-structured and front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and connection context but lacks details about the screenshot format, error handling, authentication needs, or what happens when parameters are omitted. Given the complexity of device interaction and 5 parameters, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema, though it implies the optional nature of parameters by stating 'if device info provided' and marking outputPath as optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Take a screenshot') and target resource ('any connected Android device'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'connect_and_screenshot' by emphasizing it uses existing connections or wireless setup rather than establishing a new connection as part of the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: for taking screenshots on Android devices with existing ADB connections or wireless connections if device info is provided. It distinguishes from 'connect_and_screenshot' by implying this tool doesn't handle connection establishment, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md: