adb_devicesList connected ADB devices with state, model, product, and transport metadata to identify and target Android hardware for AI-assisted development.
List ADB devices with state, model, product and transport metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | No | ||
| deviceName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the returned metadata fields (state, model, product, transport), but says nothing about filtering behavior or how the optional params affect the result set.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No filler, though it is arguably too short given the undocumented parameters.
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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. However, the two undocumented filter parameters leave a real gap that the description should have closed.
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% for two parameters (deviceId, deviceName), and the description never mentions them. The agent cannot tell whether these narrow the listing or what form they take, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (ADB devices) and names the returned metadata fields. It distinguishes itself from the generic sibling list_devices via the ADB qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the other adb_* tools.
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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent must infer that this is a discovery step before adb_shell/adb_install/adb_pull, but nothing in the description states that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.