Remove an Android app from a connected device by specifying its package name. Resolve app conflicts or clean up test environments directly via device.uninstall_app.
[approval required][device mutation][risk:dangerous] Uninstall an Android package from a device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serial | No | ||
| packageName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It includes tags for 'approval required', 'device mutation', and 'risk:dangerous', which disclose that this is a destructive, permission-sensitive operation. However, it does not explain what happens to app data, whether it affects other users, or any recovery options. The disclosure is minimal but present.
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?
The description is a single concise line with safety tags front-loaded. Every word adds value and there is no fluff.
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?
Given the simplicity of the operation, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details on the return value (e.g., success/failure), any prerequisites (like device being online), and the effect of the optional serial parameter. With no output schema and no parameter explanations, an agent may still need to infer details. The risk tag covers some context but not all.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (serial or packageName). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already shows, and it fails to compensate for the low coverage. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description should at least note that packageName is required or how serial affects the target device.
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?
The description clearly states the action (uninstall) and the resource (an Android package from a device), which distinguishes it from siblings like install_app or clear_app_data. The verb and object are specific and 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?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the purpose makes it obvious this is for removing an app, it does not mention alternatives (e.g., clear_app_data for resetting) or conditions like device requirements. The context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.