get_android_manifestRetrieve AndroidManifest.xml content from an APK to inspect app permissions, components, and configuration for reverse engineering and security review.
Retrieve and return the AndroidManifest.xml content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a simple read-only retrieval of manifest content, but it does not disclose failure behavior, file-size concerns, or whether the manifest is returned as raw XML or parsed data. For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no structural clutter. The phrase 'retrieve and return' is slightly redundant, but the description is otherwise appropriately concise.
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 the description does not need to explain return values in detail. For a zero-parameter read tool, stating that it retrieves the AndroidManifest.xml content is nearly complete, though it could mention how this differs from the component-level sibling.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter guidance.
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 and resource: it retrieves the AndroidManifest.xml content. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish this whole-manifest tool from the sibling get_manifest_component, which likely handles component-level manifest data.
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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus get_manifest_component, get_resource_file, or other manifest-related siblings. Usage is only implied by the resource name, with no exclusions or alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.