run-sequence-android-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Connect WiFi Device

android_connect_wifi

Connects to an Android device over WiFi ADB using a host or host:port, enabling wireless control after wireless debugging or adb tcpip 5555 is enabled.

Instructions

Connect to an Android device over WiFi ADB. Accepts HOST or HOST:PORT (port defaults to 5555). The device must have wireless debugging or 'adb tcpip 5555' enabled.

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": {
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "android_connect_wifi"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes	Device host, e.g. '192.168.1.3' or '192.168.1.3:5555'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It specifies the port default and input format but omits details on connection timeout, error handling, or whether the tool blocks until success. This is insufficient for a connection command.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant words. Every sentence provides essential information: the purpose, acceptable input formats, and a prerequisite condition. Highly concise.

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's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core requirements. It could briefly mention typical usage as a prerequisite for other Android commands, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly noting the default port (5555) when not provided, which the schema only implies via examples. This clarifies input semantics beyond the schema.

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 action ('Connect') and the target ('Android device over WiFi ADB'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'android_list_devices' or 'android_take_screenshot' by specifying the precise network connection task.

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 mentions prerequisites (wireless debugging or 'adb tcpip 5555' enabled) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., USB connection). It lacks exclusions or context on when it is inappropriate.

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