get_resource_fileRetrieve resource file content from an Android APK to inspect assets, XML resources, or configuration data during reverse engineering.
Retrieve resource file content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_name | Yes |
| 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 full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read, but it says nothing about permissions, behavior when the file is missing, whether binary content is handled, or how large files are returned – all meaningful for a resource-file lookup.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately short, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tightness.
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 need not be explained. But with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description omits key context an agent needs: accepted name format and read-only/error behavior, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.
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% and the single required parameter resource_name is completely undocumented. The description does not explain whether the value is a full path, a bare filename, or a resource identifier, leaving the agent to guess the expected format.
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?
States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('resource file content'), which the agent can distinguish from the sibling get_all_resource_file_names that only lists names. However, it never explicitly names that sibling or clarifies the relationship, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious alternative (get_all_resource_file_names) that would tell the agent which to pick. The agent must guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.