Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AndroidBuildMCP

AndroidBuildMCP

by dev-jackson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get crash logs

get_crash_logs
Read-only

Retrieve Android crash logs covering Java exceptions, native crashes, and ANRs to diagnose app failures.

Instructions

Dump the crash log buffer (Java exceptions, native crashes, ANRs).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_crash_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linesNoMax lines (default 300)
serialNoDevice serial (defaults to session or the only device)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds useful context about the type of events included (Java exceptions, native crashes, ANRs) but does not disclose whether the buffer is cleared after dump or if there are rate/format considerations. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not enriched.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and the parenthetical adds specific value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional params, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is dumped and what types of logs are included. A minor gap is that it does not specify the return format or structure, but this is not critical for a dump-like tool.

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?

The input schema is fully covered (100%), so the schema itself documents the 'lines' and 'serial' parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Dump'), the resource ('crash log buffer'), and the content scope ('Java exceptions, native crashes, ANRs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_logs and start_log_capture.

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 crash logs are needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_logs (general logs) or start/stop_log_capture (logging capture). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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