Read, list, set, or delete exact Android global, system, and secure settings, and report command failures for unsupported changes instead of false success.
Read/list/put/delete exact Android global/system/secure settings; returns command failure rather than claiming unsupported settings succeeded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| action | No | get | |
| user_id | No | ||
| namespace | No | global |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add a genuinely useful behavior — returning command failure instead of falsely reporting success on unsupported settings — but omits prerequisites such as root/permission needs and the destructive nature of the delete action, leaving significant gaps for a write-capable tool.
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 operation list comes first and the failure-semantics caveat follows, and every clause carries 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?
With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers scope plus error behavior. It is slightly incomplete regarding permissions and per-action parameter meaning, but sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does by mapping the verbs to action values and naming the global/system/secure namespaces, but user_id and the key/value semantics for each action remain unexplained.
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 names concrete operations (read/list/put/delete) against a precise resource (Android global/system/secure settings), so an agent knows exactly what the tool manipulates. It lacks an explicit contrast with the sibling system_property tool, which would be needed for a 5.
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 only implied by the resource (Android settings) and the namespaces listed; there is no statement of when to choose this over system_property, content_provider, or settings-adjacent siblings, and no exclusions. Adequate orientation but no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.