Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
adb-ai

adb-ai

by cyberpunk2183
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

adb_set_alarm

Schedule an alarm on an Android phone or tablet via its clock app, specifying time, repeat days, and label. Use for phone/tablet automation; TVs without clock apps are unsupported.

Instructions

Set an alarm in the device's clock app. Phones and tablets only - most TVs have no clock app and the call will say so.

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": {
      "time": "<time>"
    },
    "name": "adb_set_alarm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNorepeat, e.g. mon,tue,wed,thu,fri
timeYes7:30, 19:00
labelNowhat the alarm is for
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the platform restriction and that the tool surfaces an error on unsupported devices, but says nothing about whether an existing alarm is replaced, whether permissions/dialogs appear, or what a successful response looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the core action comes first and the platform caveat follows. Nothing redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple mutation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the main failure mode (TVs). The remaining gap is behavior on repeated calls and confirmation semantics, which is minor here.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with format examples for time ('7:30, 19:00') and days ('mon,tue,wed...'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond confirming the target resource.

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 ('Set an alarm in the device's clock app'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling adb_set_timer even though the sibling is not named. The scope (clock app alarm) is concrete enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit exclusion: phones/tablets only, TVs lack a clock app and the call will report that. This is a real when-not condition. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. adb_set_timer for non-clock-app devices), so not a 5.

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