disconnect_deviceDisconnect a TCP/IP adb device by host:port and drop its session. Use to end remote connections when a device is no longer needed or becomes unresponsive.
Disconnect a TCP/IP adb device (adb disconnect host:port) and drop its session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the effect ('drop its session'), which is real behavioral information beyond the name, but says nothing about permissions required, behavior when the device is not connected, or idempotency of a repeated disconnect.
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 efficient sentence with the operation and its target front-loaded; no filler. It is arguably too lean rather than too verbose, which costs it a point on this dimension rather than earning one.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool where the only parameter is optional with a null default, the description leaves the no-argument case (disconnect all vs. error) undefined, which is a material gap for correct invocation.
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 0% and the single parameter is a bare anyOf(string, null) with default null. The description compensates by revealing the expected 'host:port' format, but it does not explain what omitting the optional device argument does.
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 (disconnect) and resource (TCP/IP adb device), and even names the underlying command it maps to (adb disconnect host:port). It does not explicitly name connect_device as the inverse sibling, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'TCP/IP adb device' qualifier tells the agent this is for network-attached devices, not USB ones, and the counterpart connect_device exists in the sibling list. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.