Verify connectivity to an Android device or emulator and retrieve its model and Android OS version. Use it to confirm ADB access before running automation tasks.
Check connection status with Android device or emulator, returning model and Android OS version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the successful return payload (device model and Android OS version), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about failure behavior (no device attached, timeout, adb not running) or whether the call blocks, leaving a meaningful gap for a connectivity probe.
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; the purpose and the return value are both stated economically.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the result — and it does by naming model and OS version. It is nearly sufficient for a zero-parameter probe, with only failure/timeout behavior left unstated.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed to probe the active device.
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 (check) and resource (connection status with Android device/emulator) and even names the payload returned. Against siblings that are all device-mutating actions (tap, swipe, screenshot, shell), an agent can tell this is the read-only connectivity probe without opening any schema.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The intended usage (verify a device is reachable before issuing tap/swipe/shell commands) is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.