Skip to main content
Glama
infiniV

Android UI Assist MCP Server

by infiniV
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes with no overlap: one lists devices, the other captures screenshots. An agent can easily differentiate between them based on their clear, specific functions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_android_devices, take_android_screenshot) with the same prefix 'android_' for domain specificity. The naming is perfectly uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for an 'Android UI Assist' purpose, which typically implies broader UI interaction capabilities like clicking, typing, or inspecting elements. The count is too low for the apparent domain.

    Completeness2/5

    For an Android UI assistance server, there are significant gaps: no tools for interacting with UI elements (e.g., tap, input text), navigating apps, or retrieving UI hierarchies. The current tools only cover device listing and screenshot capture, leaving core UI automation workflows incomplete.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    Does 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. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific device states (unlocked, active display), what permissions are needed, whether it affects device operation, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and gets directly to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a device interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (image data, file path, error conditions), doesn't mention operational constraints or prerequisites, and provides minimal context for a tool that interacts with physical/virtual devices. The completeness is inadequate given the complexity implied by device interaction.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (deviceId with fallback behavior, format with enum constraint). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('capture a screenshot') and target resource ('from an Android device or emulator'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_android_devices' - both work with Android devices but serve different purposes.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'list_android_devices' which could be a prerequisite for obtaining device IDs, nor does it provide any context about when this operation is appropriate versus other device interaction methods.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing devices but doesn't describe what 'connected' means, whether this includes offline devices, how results are formatted, or any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of devices. It doesn't explain the return format, what data is included for each device, or any error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper use.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and since there are none, it meets the baseline of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all connected Android devices and emulators'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'take_android_screenshot' which performs a different action, but the purpose is specific enough for this tool alone.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any contextual prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without indicating scenarios for its application or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Android-Ui-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Android-Ui-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/infiniV/Android-Ui-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server