Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
shapeyourphone

shapeyourphone

by rachitkj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reapply

Restores drifted Android phone changes after preview and explicit owner approval; omit approval to generate a preview first.

Instructions

Re-apply drifted changes.

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": "reapply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deviceNoadb serial, only needed when several phones are connected
owner_approvedNotrue only after the phone's owner saw the preview and agreed. Omit to get a preview.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the description's main job is to add context about the write. It adds almost nothing: no mention of the preview/approval gate, what 'drifted changes' means, or what happens on approval. It does not contradict the annotations, but it is close to silent on behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single fragment is free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It has no structure to front-load the approval/preview condition that matters most for correct invocation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum surface the preview-before-approval workflow and the nature of the re-apply. Because those safety-critical details exist only in the parameter descriptions, an agent relying on the description alone lacks enough context to call this correctly.

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%, and the schema itself explains both 'device' and the critical 'owner_approved' preview semantics in detail. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Re-apply') and object ('drifted changes'), so the agent knows this is a remediation write rather than detection. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'drift', 'undo', or 'apply_plan', leaving the agent to infer its place in the workflow.

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 guidance on when to use this versus 'drift', 'undo', or 'apply_plan', and no mention of prerequisites such as first running drift detection. The only workflow hint (omit owner_approved to preview) lives in the schema, not the description.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools