Raccoon MCP

Pull file from Android

adb_pull

Destructive

Pull a file from an Android device to a local workspace via ADB by specifying remote and local paths.

Instructions

Pull a file from an Android device into the local workspace.

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": {
      "remotePath": "<remotePath>",
      "localPath": "<localPath>"
    },
    "name": "adb_pull"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`serial`	No
`deviceId`	No
`localPath`	Yes
`timeoutMs`	No
`deviceName`	No
`remotePath`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows a file lands on disk and something could be overwritten, but the description adds no behavioral context: it doesn't say whether the local path is overwritten, whether it requires an authorized device, or how timeouts/interruption behave. For a destructive 6-param tool, it should say more.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. Appropriately sized even if under-informative; brevity is not the problem here.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A destructive, open-world, six-parameter file-transfer tool with no output schema and no parameter coverage requires far more than one sentence. Nothing explains device targeting, overwrite semantics, or error/failure behavior, so an agent must guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters. The description mentions no parameter at all, leaving serial vs deviceId vs deviceName, remotePath/localPath, and timeoutMs fully undocumented and ambiguous (three seemingly redundant device selectors).

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?

States a specific verb (pull) and resource (file from Android device) plus the destination (local workspace). It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from adb_push, which is the inverse operation and the most common confusion point.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this instead of adb_shell, adb_push, or adb_devices. With six parameters including serial/deviceId/deviceName, the description offers nothing on how to select a target device or when this tool is the right choice.

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

Deploy Server