Runs static APK analysis to inspect manifests, DEX/ELF headers, resources, and inventories, then creates an evidence-backed job without executing the target app.
Run static engines and create evidence job
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | both | |
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent at least knows this is a local, non-destructive-but-not-read-only operation. The description only restates the write side effect ('create evidence job') and adds nothing about runtime cost, whether the job is asynchronous, permissions/toolchain prerequisites (cf. install_tools, doctor), or how results are later retrieved (list_artifacts, read_artifact, summarize_job).
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but the compression comes at the cost of clarity — the two clauses are cryptic rather than front-loaded with actionable information.
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?
For a tool that spawns a background job with no output schema, the description omits critical context: that the call returns a job rather than findings, and which sibling tools consume that job. Given 0% parameter coverage and thin annotations, the one-line description is not sufficient 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%, so the description carries the full burden and fails: neither the required 'path' (presumably the APK) nor the 'mode' enum (both/code/resources) is explained or mapped to what the engines do. The word 'engines' hints at the code/resources split but does not disambiguate the values.
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 verb phrase ('Run static engines') and a side effect ('create evidence job'), which is more than a restatement of the name. But 'static engines' and 'evidence job' are unexplained jargon, and it never distinguishes this from sibling tools like inspect_apk, review_manifest, or compare_apks, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to reach for analyze_apk versus inspect_apk for a given task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.