Report whether Chrome/WebView interception is currently armed on this device, which page target it is attached to, the active routes, and live hit counters (paused/mocked/aborted/passedThrough/errors). Check the counters to confirm a mock is actually firing — a route that never matches shows mocked: 0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| udid | Yes | Device id (Android serial or iOS UDID) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure. It explains the kind of information returned (status, target, routes, counters) and adds a practical behavioral note about interpreting mocked: 0 as a sign of a non-matching route. It does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, but the 'report' framing implies a read-only purpose. Overall, it gives good context beyond a bare status description.
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?
Two focused sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds actionable guidance. No redundant words or filler, making it extremely efficient.
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 status tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the user can expect: armed state, target, routes, and counters. It also explains the meaning of a zero counter, giving enough context for interpretation. The single parameter is already well-documented, so nothing essential is missing.
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 coverage is 100% for the single udid parameter, and the schema already provides a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable because the schema carries the burden. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and clearly identifies the resource (Chrome/WebView interception status). It enumerates the exact elements reported (armed state, page target, active routes, hit counters), which distinguishes it from sibling mock status tools (e.g., ios_safari_mock_status, webpage_mock_status) by referencing Chrome/WebView, which is Android-specific.
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?
Provides clear context on when to use the tool: to check whether interception is armed and to confirm mocks are firing via counters. The guidance 'Check the counters to confirm a mock is actually firing' implies the use case, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set contains near-identical duplicate families: web_* and playwright_* expose ~15 pairs of the same desktop-grid-browser operations (web_get_text/playwright_get_text, web_reload/playwright_reload), and screenshot/log/network/mock capabilities each have 5-8 entry points (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot vs ios_screenshot vs ios_fast_screenshot vs web_screenshot vs webpage_screenshot vs session_screenshot). Many individual descriptions carefully draw boundaries (devtools vs traffic, HID vs session), but an agent cannot reliably distinguish web_* from playwright_*, and ios_screenshot/ios_fast_screenshot/ios_mjpeg_screenshot blur together.
The prefix scheme is broken: Android functionality is split arbitrarily between android_* and device_* (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot), the desktop browser gets two parallel prefixes (web_* and playwright_*), and verbs vary across equivalents (device_navigate_url vs web_navigate vs ios_safari_navigate). session_* uses bare verbs (session_url, session_back), and the same concept gets different names (ios_clipboard_get_hid vs ios_get_pasteboard; device_screen vs ios_orientation).
333 tools is an extreme count by any measure — far beyond the 50+ threshold — and much of the bulk is duplicative (the web_*/playwright_* pairs alone double ~15 slots) or out-of-scope for a device-control server (TestRail, Jira, AzDO, agent memory, secret variables, feedback). Even granting that remote device control + test automation is a broad domain, this surface will devastate agent context budgets and is impossible to navigate coherently.
The core device-control and test-automation domain is remarkably thorough: Android and iOS each have full interaction, app-lifecycle, file, network/proxy, performance, crash, accessibility, recording, and replay coverage, with CRUD lifecycles for flows, suites, app uploads, TestRail cases, and visual-review baselines. Minor gaps exist at the margins — Jira/AzDO lack update/transition/comment operations, and iOS cannot open/close tabs — but the central workflows have no dead ends.
