android-dev-mcp

get_api_backend_patterns

Retrieves standard Android API backend patterns covering Retrofit, AuthInterceptor, repository design, error handling, and streaming.

Instructions

Returns Retrofit, AuthInterceptor, repository patterns, error handling, and streaming API conventions.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_api_backend_patterns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool 'Returns' information, indicating a read-only retrieval behavior. However, it omits any details about response format, limitations, or prerequisites. Since the tool is a simple knowledge query, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that lists the key topics without any redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by naming the specific patterns and conventions it returns. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but the core information is present.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters to describe, the baseline score is 4 according to the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies the tool's action ('Returns') and its resource (Retrofit, AuthInterceptor, repository patterns, error handling, streaming API conventions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_architecture_patterns or get_ui_compose_standards, which focus on different aspects.

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?

The description implies usage when API backend patterns are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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