List connected Android devices and emulators to identify available targets for APK reverse-engineering operations. Verifies adb on PATH for device interaction.
List connected Android devices/emulators. Requires adb on PATH.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace | No | Workspace name (not id) - created automatically if it doesn't exist yet. Defaults to "default". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the adb prerequisite, which is useful, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose output format, behavior when no devices are connected, or whether the adb server is started automatically.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and then adds a concise prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.
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?
The tool is simple and the description is adequate for a basic invocation, but with no output schema the description should say more about return content, such as device serials and states. It also leaves the workspace parameter's relevance unexplained, creating a small gap in complete context.
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 input schema fully documents the single 'workspace' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no clarifying semantics about how or whether 'workspace' relates to device listing, which is slightly confusing, but the schema already explains the parameter's own behavior.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'connected Android devices/emulators,' making the tool's function immediately clear. This also differentiates it from sibling tools like adb_shell, adb_install, and adb_logcat, which perform different device operations.
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 clearly conveys when to use the tool—when you need to list connected devices/emulators—and includes a practical prerequisite: 'Requires adb on PATH.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not conditions, but the use case is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately among Android-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.