List installed third-party Android app package IDs, with limit and query filters. Use package IDs for lookups; queries do not match human-readable app names.
List installed third-party package IDs; query matches package ID, not human app name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: results are limited to third-party packages, so system apps will be absent. It says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or what happens when no apps match.
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 the primary purpose front-loaded and the critical caveat attached via a semicolon. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition conveys what is returned (installed third-party package IDs) and the key matching caveat. The remaining gap is behavioral detail on limit/pagination and match semantics, which is minor but real given the 0% schema coverage.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It does explain the most error-prone parameter (query targets package IDs, not display names), but leaves `limit` completely unexplained and does not clarify whether query is exact-match, prefix, or substring, nor that limit defaults to 100 and caps at 500.
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?
"List installed third-party package IDs" gives a specific verb (list) and a precisely scoped resource (third-party package IDs), which distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings like aua_launch_app or aua_tap. It stops short of naming an explicit sibling to route to, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
The note that the query matches package ID rather than human app name is a genuine usage constraint that prevents a common misuse, implying this tool is a discovery step before launching apps. However, there is no explicit "use this when..." guidance, no mention of pairing with aua_launch_app, and no note that system apps are excluded.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.