android-dev-mcp

get_player_patterns

Retrieve ExoPlayer/Media3 patterns for HLS, Widevine DRM, and Compose lifecycle handling to resolve video playback integration issues.

Instructions

Returns ExoPlayer/Media3 setup, HLS, Widevine DRM, and lifecycle management in Compose.

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_player_patterns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the content scope (setup, HLS, DRM, lifecycle) but does not explain the format or nature of the returned data (e.g., code snippets, config examples) or mention any limitations. Since this is a read-only getter, the lack of side-effect information is acceptable, but the description adds only moderate transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists all key topics without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 covers the core content areas sufficiently. It does not explain the return format, but that is not strictly required for a pattern-reference tool. The description is complete enough for basic selection and invocation, though it could add a bit more detail on what 'patterns' include.

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 the schema is empty (100% coverage is trivial). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to clarify parameters since there are none.

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?

The description clearly states what the tool returns ('ExoPlayer/Media3 setup, HLS, Widevine DRM, and lifecycle management in Compose'), making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools about architecture, UI, or API patterns. The verb 'Returns' is a bit generic, but the resource details are concrete.

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 by listing specific player-related topics, so an agent can infer to use this tool when seeking Media3/HLS/DRM patterns. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative pattern-getters, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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