run-sequence-android-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Open URL

android_open_url

Opens an HTTP(S) URL in the default browser on a connected Android device or emulator, with an optional device selector.

Instructions

Open a URL in the default browser on the device.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "android_open_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The http(s) URL to open
`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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does, not behavioral traits such as whether it waits for the page to load, handles errors, or leaves the browser open. This lack of detail could lead to misassumptions.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, perfect for a simple action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks contextual details like error handling or typical use cases. It meets the minimum bar for a straightforward operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'url' and 'device' parameters.

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 (Open), the resource (a URL), and the context (in the default browser on the device). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which involve opening URLs.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a browser must be installed), alternatives, or context-specific recommendations.

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