Answer an incoming call on an Android device. Optionally specify a device ID to target a specific device.
Answer an incoming call
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": "adb_answer_call"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | No | Target device ID (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether it triggers a key event, what happens if no call is incoming, or any side effects. The description is minimal and adds little beyond the tool name.
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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Perfect conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description is enough to understand the basic action, but it lacks context about prerequisites and behavior specifics. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate, though it could benefit from noting that a call must be incoming.
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?
The schema covers the single optional parameter (deviceId) with a description, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but schema coverage is 100%, so it does not need to compensate.
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 'Answer an incoming call' uses a specific verb (answer) and resource (incoming call), clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from related tools like adb_make_call and adb_end_call through the action verb, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., requires an incoming call), and no exclusion scenarios are provided. The usage is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.