Transfers a local file to a specified path on an Android device for app testing, deployment, or data transfer.
将本地文件推送到 Android 设备。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| local_path | Yes | 本地文件的绝对路径，例如 /tmp/test.txt。 | |
| device_path | Yes | 推送到设备的目标路径，例如 /sdcard/Download/test.txt。 |
| 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 disclosure burden, and it says almost nothing behavioral. It does not mention overwrite semantics for an existing device_path, required permissions, root restrictions, file-size limits, or whether the device must be rooted/authorized. For a filesystem-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.
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 with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently structured but so terse that brevity shades into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 with only two fully documented parameters the structural side is covered. However, with no annotations at all the description should have spent a sentence on overwrite/permission behavior, leaving the definition only 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with absolute-path and example-path guidance in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond that, so the baseline of 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?
The description gives a specific verb (推送/push) and resource (本地文件/local file) with a clear destination (Android 设备). It is unambiguous about what happens, but does not name or differentiate itself from the sibling pull_file, which is the natural opposite operation an agent might confuse it with.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus pull_file, no prerequisites (e.g. device connectivity or ADB availability), and no exclusions such as whether the file must already exist or whether the destination must be writable. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.