Skip to main content
Glama

validate_vhal_property_request

Determines whether a requested vHAL property exists in Android and recommends using the existing property or creating a VENDOR_ property with proper naming.

Instructions

Validate vHAL property request and recommend using existing Android property or creating VENDOR_ property.

This tool follows Android best practices: check if a property already exists in the latest Android release
(currently Android 16) and either recommend using the existing property or generate a new VENDOR_ property
with proper naming convention.

Args:
    property_name: Requested property name (e.g., "SEAT_MASSAGE_INTENSITY")
    property_description: Description of what the property does
    property_type: Data type (BOOLEAN, INT32, INT64, FLOAT, STRING, BYTES, *_VEC, MIXED) - default: INT32
    group: Property group (HVAC, SEAT, LIGHTS, POWER, VENDOR, etc.) - default: VENDOR
    access: Access mode (READ, WRITE, READ_WRITE) - default: READ_WRITE
    change_mode: Change mode (STATIC, ON_CHANGE, CONTINUOUS) - default: ON_CHANGE
    units: Optional units (e.g., "celsius", "rpm")
    min_value: Optional minimum value for numeric types
    max_value: Optional maximum value for numeric types
    areas: Optional list of vehicle areas/zones
    enum_values: Optional dict of enum names and values for INT32 enum properties
    dependencies: Optional list of dependent property names
    sample_rate_hz: Optional sample rate for continuous properties
    android_version: Android version to check against (default: android16)

Returns:
    Comprehensive validation result with recommendations and implementation guidance

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areasNo
groupNoVENDOR
unitsNo
accessNoREAD_WRITE
max_valueNo
min_valueNo
change_modeNoON_CHANGE
enum_valuesNo
dependenciesNo
property_nameYes
property_typeNoINT32
sample_rate_hzNo
android_versionNo
property_descriptionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the decision logic (checking against Android 16 and recommending either existing or VENDOR_ property) and mentions the naming convention. It doesn't explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but the advisory nature is clear.

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 long but well-organized with an intro, Args list, and Returns. The arg details are necessary given the schema lacks descriptions, and the structure makes it easy to parse. It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'default' values).

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 complexity (14 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, decision logic, parameter semantics, and a high-level return description. It lacks only minor details like potential errors or prerequisites, which would make it fully complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description provides a detailed Args section covering all 14 parameters with types, defaults, and examples (e.g., property_name example, property_type enum values). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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: validate a vHAL property request and recommend either using an existing Android property or creating a new VENDOR_ property. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate code or summarize sources.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when validating a vHAL property request against Android best practices and Android 16. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

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/feevlic/vhal-mcp-server'

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