project_apksLists APKs produced by previous Android builds, newest first, so you can find and reuse build outputs without searching project directories.
List APKs produced by previous builds, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module | No | ||
| projectDir | No | Android project root. Defaults to ANDROID_PROJECT_DIR or the server's cwd. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the newest-first ordering, but says nothing about whether all modules/variants are included, whether the list is paginated, or what happens when the project directory is invalid.
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 sentence with no waste, and the scope plus ordering are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.
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 light read-only listing tool this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what an entry looks like (path, variant, module name) and the 'module' filter is unaddressed, so the definition falls short of complete.
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?
Only projectDir carries a schema description (50% coverage); the 'module' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description never mentions either parameter. With half the parameters unexplained, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource — 'List APKs produced by previous builds' — plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'). It is clearly distinguishable from the build-producing siblings, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.
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 phrase 'produced by previous builds' implies usage (you must have built first), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no mention of what to do when no APKs exist. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.