Wake the Android device screen via ADB to enable remote automation and control when the display is off.
Wake up the device screen
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_wake"
}
}| 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 provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects (e.g., does not unlock), requirements (e.g., device must be connected and screen off), or how the wake is performed. This is minimal transparency.
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 zero waste. It captures the essential purpose effectively and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is functional but lacks nuance. It does not explain the relationship to lock state or how waking is achieved, which would be useful given the presence of sibling tools like adb_unlock and adb_is_locked. Complete enough for basic use but not fully contextual.
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% — the single 'deviceId' parameter is already fully documented in the schema as 'Target device ID (optional)'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Wake up the device screen' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like adb_unlock and adb_press_key. It concisely states the tool's core function without ambiguity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like adb_unlock or adb_press_key. There is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion mentioned, leaving the usage scenario unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.