Skip to main content
Glama

Look up known Android failure modes

android_pitfalls
Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify Android build and runtime failures whose symptoms mislead. Search by error text, topic, or keyword to reveal the actual cause and fix.

Instructions

Search a curated set of Android development failure modes whose symptoms point nowhere near their causes.

These are problems where the obvious interpretation is wrong: a build that fails on a JDK version rather than the code, a service killed by vendor power management rather than a bug, keystrokes ignored because they are synthetic, a GridLayout that collapses because of how weights resolve. Each entry gives the symptom, the actual cause, and the fix.

Consult this when something fails in a way that does not make sense, before spending time bisecting the app's own code.

Args:

  • error_text (string, optional): observed error output; returns entries whose known signatures match it

  • topic ('build'|'device'|'service'|'input'|'layout'|'packaging', optional): filter by area

  • search (string, optional): case-insensitive substring match across title, symptom, cause and fix

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json')

Returns: { "count": number, "pitfalls": [ { "id": string, "topic": string, "title": string, "symptom": string, "cause": string, "fix": string } ] }

Examples:

  • Use when: a build failed with unfamiliar output -> error_text=""

  • Use when: a background service keeps dying -> topic="service"

  • Use when: planning tablet support and you want the known traps first -> topic="layout"

  • Don't use when: the error is plainly in the app's own code

Error Handling:

  • Returns an empty list when nothing matches; that means the problem is not a known environment trap

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoRestrict results to one area.
searchNoSubstring to search for across all fields.
error_textNoObserved error output to match against known failure signatures.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' for human-readable, 'json' for machine-readable.markdown
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the meaning of an empty result ('returns an empty list when nothing matches; that means the problem is not a known environment trap') and the return structure, which is not present in the output schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections for arguments, returns, examples, and error handling. It is appropriately sized for a search tool with multiple filters and does not waste words, though the examples section could be slightly condensed without loss of meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers the return format, the filter semantics, and the empty-result behavior. It also sets clear expectations about the curated nature of the data, making the tool complete and self-contained for an agent to use confidently alongside sibling tools.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of all four parameters, so the description's parameter prose is supplemental rather than essential. The description adds helpful examples and clarifications (e.g., 'error_text' matches against known signatures), but it omits the valid topic value 'host-bridge' that appears in the schema enum, introducing a minor inconsistency. This limits the added value to a baseline level.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search a curated set of Android development failure modes whose symptoms point nowhere near their causes.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operational tools like android_build or android_logcat, which perform actions rather than provide knowledge.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Consult this when something fails in a way that does not make sense, before spending time bisecting the app's own code.' It also gives concrete examples ('Use when: a build failed with unfamiliar output') and an exclusion ('Don't use when: the error is plainly in the app's own code'), offering clear alternatives and boundary conditions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/jjs03111/android-build-mcp'

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