Grant a specified runtime permission to an Android app by package name, enabling it to access protected device features.
为指定应用授予运行时权限。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| permission | Yes | 权限名称，例如 android.permission.CAMERA。 | |
| package_name | Yes | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention permission prerequisites, whether an already-granted permission is idempotent, possible failures (unknown package, unknown permission), or that this is a write operation affecting device state.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. No filler, though it is very short for a mutation 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema is fully documented. However, for a state-changing permission operation with no annotations, the description omits prerequisites, idempotency, and failure modes, leaving key behavioral context missing.
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 100% with examples for both parameters, so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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 (grant) and resource (runtime permission for a given app), which is distinct from siblings like install_apk or launch_app. It is clear but not explicitly differentiated from any particular sibling.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer purpose from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.