Raccoon MCP

Run Android shell command

adb_shell

Destructive

Run ADB shell commands on a chosen Android device or emulator, with optional serial, timeout, and output limits for controlled execution via Raccoon MCP.

Instructions

Run a command through adb shell on an optional target device.

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": {
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "adb_shell"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`serial`	No
`command`	Yes
`deviceId`	No
`timeoutMs`	No
`deviceName`	No
`maxOutputBytes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the minor note that the target device is optional, and says nothing about the arbitrary-command risk surface, timeouts, or output truncation, so it is minimum-viable against the annotation bar.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. The terseness is arguably under-specification rather than good concision, but structurally it is clean.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with a defaulted timeout (120000 ms), an output byte cap, and three different device-identifier fields and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. It leaves an agent unable to distinguish serial, deviceId, and deviceName or to understand output truncation behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description carries the burden and fails: 'optional target device' hints at serial/deviceId/deviceName but never disambiguates, and command, timeoutMs, and maxOutputBytes are entirely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Run) and resource (a command through adb shell), which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling shell_run or the other adb_* tools, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it should pick this over shell_run.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as shell_run or the more specific adb_install/adb_pull siblings. The agent gets no routing information beyond the name.

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

Deploy Server