NexusAndroid

by pironjulien

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

phone

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks the connected Android phone's model, screen state, foreground app, and whether it is linked over USB or Wi-Fi.

Instructions

État de la liaison : téléphone joint (USB ou Wi-Fi), modèle, écran, application au premier plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes
`model`	Yes
`locked`	Yes
`serial`	Yes
`android`	Yes
`posture`	Yes	plié, entrouvert, ouvert ou vide (téléphone non pliable)
`rebooted`	Yes
`screen_on`	Yes
`transport`	Yes
`foreground`	Yes
`kept_awake_until`	Yes	HH:MM, écran gardé allumé par les agents jusqu'à cette heure

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1Oct 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "android": {
+      "title": "Android",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "foreground": {
+      "title": "Foreground",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kept_awake_until": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "HH:MM, écran gardé allumé par les agents jusqu'à cette heure",
+      "title": "Kept Awake Until"
+    },
+    "locked": {
+      "title": "Locked",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "model": {
+      "title": "Model",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "posture": {
+      "description": "plié, entrouvert, ouvert ou vide (téléphone non pliable)",
+      "title": "Posture",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rebooted": {
+      "title": "Rebooted",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "screen_on": {
+      "title": "Screen On",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "serial": {
+      "title": "Serial",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "text": {
+      "title": "Text",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "transport": {
+      "enum": [
+        "usb",
+        "wifi"
+      ],
+      "title": "Transport",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "text",
+    "model",
+    "serial",
+    "transport",
+    "android",
+    "posture",
+    "screen_on",
+    "locked",
+    "foreground",
+    "kept_awake_until",
+    "rebooted"
+  ],
+  "title": "PhoneStatus",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.3.1Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's contribution is the enumeration of reported fields, which is useful but partially redundant with the output schema. No rate limits, freshness, or failure modes are described.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core fact (link state) and then lists the additional reported fields. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety. It supplies the right amount of context for a zero-parameter status reader. The only gap is the absence of any hint about when this probe is the right choice.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing argument behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what is reported: link state, connection type (USB or Wi-Fi), model, screen, and foreground application. That is far more informative than the bare name 'phone'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as 'info' or 'checkup', so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or context. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is a status probe, and with siblings like 'info' and 'checkup' present the routing question is left entirely open.

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

Deploy Server