cardeck

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

offer_apk

Pushes a new APK to a CarDeck device by copying it to public/ and triggering an install prompt, using the local APK file path and target device ID.

Instructions

向设备推送新 APK（复制到 public/ 并下发安装提示；filePath 为本地 APK 绝对路径）

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": {
      "deviceId": "<deviceId>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "offer_apk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`version`	No	debug
`deviceId`	Yes
`filePath`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two-step side effect: copying the file to public/ and issuing an install prompt. It omits whether an existing APK is overwritten, whether the device must be online, what the install prompt does on the device, and how failures are reported — significant gaps for a deployment action.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that earns its place by explaining the side effect and the filePath format. No padding, though the parenthetical packs two unrelated facts together.

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-style deployment tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin: version semantics, overwrite behavior, device-state prerequisites, and result/error reporting are all unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only clarifies one of three parameters (filePath as the local absolute APK path). The version parameter (default 'debug') and deviceId get no meaning at all — notably what 'version' controls and what values are valid.

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 verb and resource ('向设备推送新 APK') and adds the mechanism (copy to public/, issue install prompt), which is far more informative than a bare name. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like cmd or notify, but the resource is distinctive enough that confusion is unlikely.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'push a new APK to the device' — an agent can infer this is the deployment step. However, there is no guidance on prerequisites (device connected? checked via bridge_status?), no when-not-to-use, and no mention of whether cmd could install an APK instead.

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

Deploy Server