Retrieve the process ID (PID) for a given Android package name to identify and manage the app process on a connected device.
Returns the process ID (PID) for the specified package name on the connected Android device. Requires the package_name parameter, which is the name of the package to query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says it returns a PID, without mentioning failure modes (e.g., if the package is not installed), device requirements, or output format. For a read-only query tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, focused sentence that states the operation and the required parameter without any filler. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. For a tool that likely interacts with an adb device, it should mention prerequisites (device connected), failure handling, and the output format. The description is not sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only restates that package_name is the name of the package to query. This adds little beyond the schema property title, so it does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns the PID for a given package name on a connected Android device. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_top_activity or is_installed, but the function's name (get_pid) and specific resource (package) make its purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when you need a PID for a package), but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so guidance is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.