Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
adb-ai

adb-ai

by cyberpunk2183
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

adb_open_app

Launch an Android app on a connected device using a friendly alias, full package name, or package fragment; optionally specify the target device.

Instructions

Launch an app by friendly alias (netflix, youtube, spotify...), full package name, or a fragment of one.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "app": "<app>"
    },
    "name": "adb_open_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appYes
deviceNoserial, ip[:port] or saved alias; omit to use the default device

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses fuzzy matching ('a fragment of one'), which is real behavior beyond the schema, but says nothing about what happens on no match or multiple matches, whether the device must be connected, or whether the app is brought to foreground.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the input format detail packed into a parenthetical list. Nothing extraneous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter launch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary ambiguity (what 'app' accepts) but leaves failure modes and result behavior unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50% (the 'app' parameter has no description), and the description fills that gap by spelling out the three accepted input forms: friendly alias, full package name, or fragment. The 'device' parameter is already documented in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Launch an app'), which is clearly separable from adb_close_app and adb_list_apps by name alone. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or scope, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used when you want to start an app and gives accepted identifier forms, but it never says when to prefer adb_list_apps to discover a package or adb_open_url for links. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools