Locates cross-DEX references to a specified string, type, method, or field within an Android APK, enabling quick analysis of code usage across multiple DEX files.
Find cross-DEX references to a string, type, method, or field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| threads | No | ||
| apk_path | Yes | ||
| class_name | No | ||
| fuzzy_class | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates that the operation searches across DEX references, but it does not state whether it is read-only, expensive, limited, or what the result surface looks like beyond the output schema.
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 with no filler and the core scope delivered immediately. However, the brevity contributes to underspecification for such a parameter-rich tool.
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?
A tool with eight parameters, two required, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations cannot be adequately invoked from this description. The output schema covers return shapes, but the missing parameter semantics and usage guidance are critical gaps.
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 0%, and the description does not compensate. Eight parameters exist, including required apk_path and kind, plus value, limit, offset, threads, class_name, and fuzzy_class. The only semantic hint is that references can target string, type, method, or field, which maps weakly to the 'kind' enum.
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 states a specific action ('Find') and resource ('cross-DEX references') and enumerates the reference kinds: string, type, method, or field. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asc_list_classes or asc_get_class_source, which target different concerns.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer its role from the tool name and sibling list rather than from explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.