Skip to main content
Glama

modify_resource_file

Update the content of a specified resource file in Android projects. Define project directory, resource type, name, and new content. Optional backup creation ensures data safety during modifications.

Instructions

Modify the content of a specific resource file.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
create_backupNo
new_contentYes
project_dirYes
resource_nameYes
resource_typeYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'modify_resource_file' MCP tool. It modifies a resource file in the res/[resource_type]/[resource_name] path within an APKTool project directory. Includes input validation using ValidationUtils, backup creation, file writing with UTF-8 encoding, and returns detailed success/error information including sizes and paths.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def modify_resource_file(
        project_dir: str,
        resource_type: str,
        resource_name: str,
        new_content: str,
        create_backup: bool = True
    ) -> Dict:
        """
        Modify the content of a specific resource file with validation and backup support.
        
        Args:
            project_dir: Path to the APKTool project directory
            resource_type: Resource type (e.g., "layout", "values")
            resource_name: Name of the resource file
            new_content: New content for the resource file
            create_backup: Whether to create a backup of the original file
            
        Returns:
            Dictionary with operation results and metadata
        """
        # Input validation
        path_validation = ValidationUtils.validate_path(project_dir, must_exist=True)
        if not path_validation["valid"]:
            return {"success": False, "error": path_validation["error"]}
        
        if not resource_type or not resource_name:
            return {"success": False, "error": "Resource type and name are required"}
        
        resource_path = os.path.join(project_dir, "res", resource_type, resource_name)
        if not os.path.exists(resource_path):
            return {
                "success": False,
                "error": f"Resource file not found: {resource_path}",
                "expected_path": resource_path
            }
        
        try:
            # Get original file info
            original_size = os.path.getsize(resource_path)
            
            # Create backup if requested
            backup_path = None
            if create_backup:
                backup_path = f"{resource_path}.bak.{int(time.time())}"
                shutil.copy2(resource_path, backup_path)
            
            # Write new content
            with open(resource_path, 'w', encoding="utf-8") as f:
                f.write(new_content)
            
            result = {
                "success": True,
                "message": f"Successfully modified {resource_path}",
                "path": resource_path,
                "backup_path": backup_path,
                "resource_type": resource_type,
                "resource_name": resource_name,
                "original_size": original_size,
                "new_size": len(new_content),
                "backup_created": backup_path is not None
            }
             
            return result
            
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error modifying resource file: {str(e)}")
            return {
                "success": False,
                "error": f"Failed to modify resource file: {str(e)}"
            }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies content, implying mutation, but doesn't mention critical behaviors like whether modifications are destructive, require specific permissions, have side effects, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or usage context, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation despite the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'specific resource file' which hints at 'resource_name' and 'resource_type', but doesn't clarify the meaning of 'project_dir', 'new_content', or 'create_backup', nor does it explain relationships between parameters. This is inadequate for 5 parameters with no schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('modify') and target ('content of a specific resource file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'modify_smali_file' or other modification tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify_smali_file' or 'get_resource_file'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zinja-coder/apktool-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server