run-sequence-android-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Terminate App

android_terminate_app

Destructive

Force-stop a running Android app by package name to stop its process and free resources on the selected or auto-detected device.

Instructions

Force-stop a running app by package name.

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": {
      "packageName": "<packageName>"
    },
    "name": "android_terminate_app"
  }
}

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).
`packageName`	Yes	Package name of the app to stop

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true; description adds 'Force-stop' which aligns. However, it does not disclose additional behaviors (e.g., immediate process kill, no graceful shutdown, impact on app state). Minimal extra value beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action, no redundant words. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with destructive annotation and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. Minor gap: missing mention that force-stopping is immediate and may lose unsaved data, but overall adequate.

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%; both parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add any new meaning or context beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Force-stop') and resource ('a running app') with the method ('by package name'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like android_launch_app and android_list_apps.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., android_uninstall_app). No when-not or prerequisite conditions. Implied usage only.

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