@wilsonbeam/openclaw-adb-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

adb_clear_data

Clears all data for an Android app using its package name, resetting the app to default state and freeing storage via ADB.

Instructions

Clear all data for an application

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": {
      "packageName": "<packageName>"
    },
    "name": "adb_clear_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deviceId`	No	Target device ID (optional)
`packageName`	Yes	Package name of the app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Clear all data' implies destructive and irreversible data loss, but it does not explicitly state that the action is permanent, require any special permissions, or clarify the exact scope of 'all data' (e.g., app-specific vs. external storage).

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. The action verb is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the action and the schema covers parameters. However, a brief note about irreversibility would have made it complete; this is a minor gap rather than a major omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage; 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('all data for an application'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like adb_force_stop and adb_uninstall_app, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as adb_uninstall_app or adb_force_stop. There are no prerequisites, side-effect warnings, or contextual hints beyond the bare action.

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