Skip to main content
Glama
fastmcp-me

Android Project MCP Server

by fastmcp-me
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.10.0

  • 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.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

androidbuild-ShenghaiWang MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

androidbuild-ShenghaiWang MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fastmcp-me/androidbuild-ShenghaiWang'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server