android-dev-mcp

run_bash

Run any shell command for Android development tasks not covered by dedicated tools, and capture stdout/stderr output.

Instructions

Executes an arbitrary shell command and returns stdout/stderr. Use for anything not covered by run_adb/run_git/run_gradle/run_android_cli.

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": "run_bash"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cwd`	No	Optional working directory. Defaults to current directory.
`command`	Yes	The full shell command to execute.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns stdout/stderr, but does not disclose potential side effects of arbitrary command execution, permissions, or environmental constraints.

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 sentence that clearly states the purpose and usage, with no redundancy. Every word contributes value.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's core function, return values, and usage context. Given its simple two-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description is complete enough for most scenarios, though it could mention potential side effects or execution environment.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool executes arbitrary shell commands and returns stdout/stderr. It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by directing use to anything not covered by run_adb, run_git, run_gradle, and run_android_cli.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says to use this tool for anything not covered by specific sibling tools, providing clear when-to-use guidance and implicit alternatives.

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