Sandboxed Android reverse-engineering MCP server for static analysis of Android applications
Critical gaps across all dimensions. Only 2 of 12 tools have visible input schemas in the provided source (fingerprint, create_job, get_job_status, list_jobs from mcp_server.py). Tools 5-12 are listed in Dockerfile without schema definitions visible, cannot verify their actual registration or parameter types. Descriptions are present but generic (avg ~80 chars, below 194-char baseline). No parameter descriptions for most tools. No output schemas documented. No error handling guidance. No tool annotations. STDIO transport caps protocol readiness at 50.
Create a new analysis job for an artifact with a specified operation
Expand a specific node in the application map to show its relationships
Identify authentication flows in the application
Find data flow paths from source to sink locations
Analyze an Android artifact (APK/XAPK/APKS/APKM) to identify framework, HTTP stack, and other characteristics
Get the application map for a program repository showing entities and relationships
Retrieve context information for a specific function
7 of 12 tools (get_application_map through health) have no visible input schemas in source code. Cannot verify parameter types, constraints, or descriptions.
No output schemas documented for any tool. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract required fields. Baseline: 100% of A+ tools have documented return types.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 42 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Retrieve the current status and results of an analysis job
Get health status and capabilities of the analysis server
List all analysis jobs with optional filtering
Trace cryptographic operations in the application
Trace the flow of a value through the program
Parameter descriptions missing or minimal. 'artifact' in fingerprint/create_job has description, but 'operation' in create_job lacks detail on valid values. 'limit' and 'offset' in list_jobs have no descriptions. Baseline: 100% of A+ tools have param descriptions.
No error handling guidance. Tools do not document what errors can occur, whether they are retryable, or what the LLM should do next. Baseline: recovery guides required for production tools.
No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). All tools are marked READ_ONLY or WRITE in metadata, but MCP tool annotations are absent. Agents cannot infer safety properties from the protocol.