Android Proxy MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool requires the proxy to be started first via a specific command. However, it doesn't describe what the status output includes (e.g., running/stopped, ports, errors), rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 two concise sentences: one stating the purpose and another with a prerequisite note. It's front-loaded with the main function and avoids unnecessary details, though the prerequisite could be slightly more integrated for optimal flow.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a zero-parameter tool. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite, but lacks details on return values (e.g., status format) and doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like error handling or dependencies, leaving room for improvement.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate—it efficiently states the tool's purpose without redundant parameter explanations.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as '获取代理服务器状态' (get proxy server status), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'android_setup_proxy' or 'android_clear_proxy', but the core function is unambiguous.

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 implied usage guidance through the prerequisite note: '需要先在终端运行 'uv run android-proxy-start' 启动代理' (requires running 'uv run android-proxy-start' in the terminal to start the proxy first). This indicates when the tool can be used (after proxy startup), but doesn't specify when to use it versus alternatives like checking device info or traffic tools.

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