A
licenseB
qualityD
maintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables building Android projects and running tests directly in Visual Studio Code through extensions like Cline or Roo Code.
3
5
MIT
Android Project MCP Server
by fastmcp-me
Provides tools for building Android projects, running unit tests, and instrumented tests.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Android Project MCP ServerBuild the Android project at ~/AndroidStudioProjects/MyApp"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Android Project MCP Server
A Model Context Protocol server that builds Android project that enables seamless workflow working with Android projects in Visual Studio Code using extensions like Cline or Roo Code.
Available Tools
build- Build Android projectfolder(string, required): The full path of the current folder that the Android project sits
test- Run unit testfolder(string, required): The full path of the current folder that the Android project sits
instrumentedTest- Run Instrumented testfolder(string, required): The full path of the current folder that the Android project sits
Installation
Using uv (recommended)
When using uv no specific installation is needed. We will
use uvx to directly run mcpandroidbuild.
Using PIP
Alternatively you can install mcpandroidbuild via pip:
pip install mcpandroidbuildAfter installation, you can run it as a script using:
python -m mcpandroidbuildRelated MCP server: replicant-mcp
Configuration
Configure for Claude.app
Add to your Claude settings:
"mcpServers": {
"mcpandroidbuild": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["mcpandroidbuild"]
}
}"mcpServers": {
"mcpandroidbuild": {
"command": "python",
"args": ["-m", "mcpandroidbuild"]
}
}License
mcpandroidbuild MCP tool is licensed under the MIT License. This means you are free to use, modify, and distribute the software, subject to the terms and conditions of the MIT License. For more details, please see the LICENSE file in the project repository.
Available Tools
3 toolsbuildB
Build the Android project in the folder
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | The full path of the current folder that the Android project sits |
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but is too brief. It only says 'Build the Android project' without disclosing side effects, permissions, build variant, or outcome. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand behavioral impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence. However, it lacks any structural formatting (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify what 'build' entails (e.g., compilation steps, output artifacts, success/failure indicators). This leaves the agent underinformed.
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%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. This meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Build' and resource 'Android project', and implies using the folder parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'test' and 'instrumentedTest' by focusing on building rather than testing. However, it lacks specificity on build type (e.g., debug/release) or output.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling names imply use for building, while tests are for testing, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
instrumentedTestB
Run instrumented test for the Android project in the folder
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | The full path of the current folder that the Android project sits |
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'run instrumented test', but does not explain side effects (e.g., starting an emulator), whether it requires a device, or if it modifies the project. The description is too brief to inform the agent about potential impacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description fails to mention what happens after the test runs (e.g., results, logs, on failure behavior). For a test tool, this information is important, making the description incomplete.
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?
There is only one parameter 'folder', and its schema description already covers 'The full path of the current folder that the Android project sits'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 verb 'Run', the resource 'instrumented test', and the context 'for the Android project in the folder'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'build' and 'test' by specifying 'instrumented test', implying a difference from unit tests or build actions.
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 usage when instrumented tests need to be run, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'test' or 'build'. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
testC
Run test for the Android project in the folder
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | The full path of the current folder that the Android project sits |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Run test', omitting details like side effects (e.g., compilation, output generation), resource usage, or whether it's destructive. Agent lacks critical info for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One succinct sentence with no redundancy. While brief, it is appropriate for a simple tool; front-loads the key action and context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and sibling tools, description is incomplete. Does not specify what type of tests are run, expected output, or behavior differences from 'instrumentedTest'. Agent lacks sufficient context for robust decision-making.
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 covers the sole parameter 'folder' fully (100%). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, earning baseline score 3.
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?
Description clearly states action ('Run test') and resource ('Android project in the folder'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'instrumentedTest', which could cause confusion about which test type is executed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'instrumentedTest'. Context implies it's for running tests, but no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
3 tool updates
v0.10.0- First observed
build - First observed
instrumentedTest - First observed
test
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Scored across 3 tools
Disambiguation4/5
Build is clearly distinct from testing, but 'instrumentedTest' and 'test' are ambiguous: the names are too similar and descriptions lack differentiation, potentially causing confusion.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: 'build' and 'test' are lowercase, while 'instrumentedTest' uses camelCase. No clear verb_noun pattern.
Tool Count2/5
Only 3 tools for an Android project is minimal. Common tasks like linting, cleaning, or building variants are missing, making the surface feel thin.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface lacks essential Android build operations (e.g., clean, lint, assembleDebug, generate signed APK). Testing coverage is incomplete without specifying unit vs integration.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
Remote MCP for Android CLI agent build gate, structured receipts, audit logs, and reviewer-ready evi
MCP server for Appcircle mobile CI/CD platform.
MCP server for static security analysis of Android source code
A MCP server built for developers enabling Git based project management with project and personal…
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables AI assistants to build, test, and debug Android applications by interacting directly with the Android development environment. It provides tools for managing emulators, executing Gradle tasks, running ADB commands, and performing UI automation via accessibility trees.1443 npm16MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceUnified MCP server for Android mobile development — combines project knowledge, Android CLI execution, live dependency versions, and agentic workflow tools for Claude Code.2418 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMCP server that provides AI coding agents real Android development tools—Gradle, adb, logcat, lint, crash triage—through a local, permissioned interface. Enables agents to inspect projects, run safe Gradle tasks, capture logs/screenshots, and triage crashes.1-