Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

android_devtools_navigate

Navigate a page running on the device to a URL via CDP (Page.navigate). If waitMs > 0, waits up to that many milliseconds for a Page.frameStoppedLoading event before returning. Returns { url (the requested URL), finalUrl (the ACTUAL post-redirect URL — non-null only when waitMs > 0, so redirects are visible), loaderId?, errorText?, frameStoppedLoading? }. Omit pageId to auto-select the visible/active page. On success the page it landed on becomes this device's current page, so you can call the other android_devtools_* tools straight afterwards WITHOUT pageId and stay on this tab — no list_pages round trip needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	URL to navigate to
`udid`	Yes	Device serial number (UDID)
`pageId`	No	Target page id (auto-picked when omitted)
`socket`	No	Abstract unix socket name (default: chrome_devtools_remote)
`waitMs`	No	Milliseconds to wait for Page.frameStoppedLoading after navigating (default: 0 = do not wait)

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the wait behavior with waitMs, the conditional return of finalUrl for redirects, auto-selection of the visible page when pageId is omitted, and the side effect of setting the current page for subsequent tools. This goes well beyond a basic 'navigate' statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat long but every sentence adds value: purpose, wait behavior, return fields, page selection, and side effects. It is front-loaded with the main action and structurally organized. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 due to its density, though there is no wasted text.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description's detailed explanation of return values (url, finalUrl, loaderId, errorText, frameStoppedLoading) is essential and provided. It also covers timing behavior, page selection, and the current-page side effect, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that omitting pageId auto-selects the visible page, that waitMs controls waiting for frameStoppedLoading, and it details the return values, which is valuable given no output schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Navigate a page running on the device to a URL via CDP (Page.navigate)'. This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from other android_devtools_* tools by detailing the navigation action, wait option, and page selection behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear usage context, especially the note about calling other android_devtools_* tools without pageId after success, avoiding a list_pages round trip. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like device_navigate_url or when NOT to use this tool, so it falls slightly 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.

All Robot Actions — Remote Device Control tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency2/5

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).

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?