app_uninstallUninstalls an Android app package from a connected device or emulator, with optional data retention. Provide the package name and device serial when needed.
Uninstall an app package from a device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serial | No | Device serial from devices_list. Optional when exactly one device is online. | |
| package | Yes | Application package / applicationId | |
| keepData | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds only the scope phrase 'from a device' and does not disclose the critical behavior that app data is wiped by default (keepData defaults to false), nor whether the operation is reversible or requires permissions. Minimal value beyond annotations.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though its terseness is the source of the missing detail rather than a model of completeness.
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?
This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and an undocumented keepData parameter whose default destroys app data. For that complexity level, the description should explain data-loss implications and result behavior, but it supplies none of it.
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 67%: serial and package are documented in the schema, but keepData has no description at all despite controlling whether user data survives. The description provides no parameter semantics and therefore fails to compensate for the uncovered destructive parameter.
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 ('Uninstall') and resource ('an app package from a device'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like app_install and packages_list. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as packages_list (to inspect before removing) or app_install (to reinstall), nor any prerequisites such as device being online. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.