Stops an Android app by package name to terminate its processes. Use it to halt misbehaving or background apps on a connected device.
强制停止指定包名的 Android 应用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package_name | Yes | 要强制停止的应用包名，例如 com.example.app。 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies abrupt termination but does not explain effects on unsaved data, required permissions, or whether the action is reversible, leaving significant gaps for a mutation/kill operation.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.
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 low complexity (one parameter, output schema present) the description need not explain return values. However, the absence of annotations means the description should carry behavioral context and usage guidance, which it largely omits, leaving it minimally complete.
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?
The schema already documents the single parameter with a description and example, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (force stop) and resource (Android app) with the required package name, making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like clear_app_data or launch_app, so an agent must infer the difference.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.