run-sequence-android-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Device Info

android_device_info

Read-only

Retrieve model, Android version, SDK level, screen size, orientation, battery level, and foreground app for a connected device to assess its state.

Instructions

Get details of a device: model, Android version, SDK level, screen size, orientation, battery level, and the current foreground app.

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": "android_device_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`device`	No	Device id (serial or host:port). Optional -- when omitted, uses ANDROID_MCP_DEVICE env or auto-selects the connected device (physical devices preferred over emulators).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Get' action aligns. The description lists output fields but does not add behavioral context beyond reading. No contradiction detected.

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 front-loads the purpose ('Get details of a device') and efficiently enumerates the data fields. No redundant or unclear wording.

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 single parameter with full schema coverage, readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description sufficiently lists all return values. It could mention that it captures a snapshot of current device state, but current completeness is high.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description for the 'device' parameter (including fallback logic). The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 ('Get details') and specific resource ('device'), listing exactly which details are returned: model, version, SDK, screen, orientation, battery, foreground app. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like android_list_devices (lists devices) or android_take_screenshot (captures image).

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 for retrieving device information but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., android_list_devices for device IDs, android_logcat for logs). No 'when-not' or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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