Decompile an Android APK into readable Java-like source code with jadx, enabling inspection and analysis of app internals.
Decompile an APK to readable Java-like source with jadx. Requires jadx on PATH.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apkPath | Yes | Absolute path to the .apk file | |
| 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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that jadx is required and that the output is Java-like source, but it does not state what the tool actually returns (e.g., source text, file paths, or saved workspace artifacts), whether it creates files, or whether it has side effects on the APK or workspace.
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 compact and effective: the first sentence states the core function, and the second flags the external dependency. Every word earns its place, and the essential prerequisite is front-loaded.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format or output destination, the role of the workspace parameter in decompilation, or how this tool relates to the sibling 'decode_apk'. An agent would be uncertain about what happens after invocation and which tool is appropriate for a given task.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both apkPath and workspace adequately. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, such as how workspace influences output or how paths are resolved, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the action (decompile), the resource (APK), and the output (readable Java-like source via jadx), which is a specific and informative purpose. However, it fails to distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling 'decode_apk', leaving room for confusion about which APK-related operation to choose.
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 only usage guidance is the prerequisite that jadx must be on PATH. There is no mention of when to use this tool over alternatives like decode_apk, build_apk, or other APK analysis tools, nor any exclusions or conditional recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.