Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
android-reserve-mcp

android-reserve-mcp

by lonnnnnng
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

artifact

Destructive

Identify Android artifacts by content to map nested packages, modules, ABIs, and framework candidates; extract selected chains to a task directory without overwriting originals.

Instructions

按内容识别产物、嵌套包/模块/ABI与框架候选；支持文件或目录。extract按inspect返回的chain定向提取到任务目录，不覆盖原文件。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "artifact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
chainNo
actionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

注解已给出 destructiveHint=true 等安全画像，描述又补充了 extract 的写入目标是任务目录且不覆盖原文件，这是有价值的额外行为信息。描述未说明 inspect 的返回内容，也未说明任务目录中已有文件是否会被覆盖，因此未满分。

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?

描述采用两段式表述，先讲 inspect 的识别范围，再讲 extract 的提取约束；短小、前置、无冗余。

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

Completeness3/5

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

对于具有双动作且标注为 destructive 的工具，描述覆盖了用途、基本工作流和不覆盖原文件这一关键安全点。但该工具没有 output schema，描述也未说明 inspect 返回结构、chain 形态以及任务目录内同名文件的处理方式，作为多步工具仍不够完整。

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?

schema 描述覆盖率为 0%，但描述补充了 path 可传文件或目录、action 包含 inspect/extract、chain 来自 inspect 并用于定向提取，覆盖了三个参数的核心语义。描述未解释 chain 数组元素和上限，也未明确 extract 时 chain 是否必填，仍有细节缺口。

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?

描述明确说明该工具按内容识别产物、嵌套包/模块/ABI 和框架候选，并支持文件或目录；随后说明 extract 按 chain 定向提取。动作和资源较清晰，但没有显式说明与 apk/dex/framework 等兄弟工具的取舍，因此不是 5。

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

描述隐含了先 inspect 取得 chain、再用 extract 的工作流，并说明 extract 写入任务目录；但没有明确何时应使用本工具而非 apk、dex、framework、packages 等替代工具，也没有说明何时不应使用。

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools