Executes raw adb shell commands on an Android phone or emulator to handle tasks not covered by structured app tools.
Run a raw adb shell command on the phone (escape hatch for anything not covered).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | Shell command line executed on the device. | |
| timeout | No | Seconds before giving up. |
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 carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'raw adb shell' and 'escape hatch,' which hints at arbitrary device execution, but it does not disclose privilege level, destructive potential, side effects, or output behavior.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The parenthetical 'escape hatch for anything not covered' adds useful routing context without bloating the definition.
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?
For an unannotated arbitrary shell executor, the description is too thin on safety and execution context. It does not explain privileges, whether commands can modify or destroy device state, or how output is returned, and there is no output schema to compensate.
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 100%, and both `command` and `timeout` are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: run a raw `adb shell` command on the phone. The phrase 'escape hatch for anything not covered' clearly distinguishes it from the many dedicated sibling tools such as `ui_tap`, `device_pull`, and `device_status`.
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?
It gives a clear fallback condition: use this when no dedicated tool covers the task. It does not explicitly warn against bypassing dedicated tools or list representative alternatives, but the selection rule is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.