Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
android-mcp

android-mcp

by mii-shell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_crash

Retrieves a complete Android crash report by ID, including process, version, time, and full stack trace, to diagnose app failures.

Instructions

Full report of one crash from list_crashes: header (process, version, time) and the complete stack trace.

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": {
      "package": "<package>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_crash"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesId from list_crashes, e.g. crash@2026-10-22 13:57:56
serialNoadb serial; optional when exactly one device is connected
packageYes
max_linesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned content (header and stack trace), but does not clarify read-only behavior, device-selection requirements, or how max_lines may truncate the claimed 'complete' stack trace.

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 states the tool's scope and return content without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema and two of four parameters lack schema descriptions, so the description should do more to explain package and max_lines. It summarizes the returned report but leaves important invocation details unspecified.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the required package parameter or the max_lines behavior. It only loosely connects the id to list_crashes, which is already documented in the schema.

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 identifies the resource as one crash report and distinguishes it from the sibling list_crashes by emphasizing a single crash and full detail. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb, but the intended action is still clear.

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 phrase 'from list_crashes' implies this tool should be used after obtaining a crash id from the listing tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools