Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

android_traffic_start

Start TLS inspection on an Android device: brings up a per-device TLS-inspecting proxy and points the device at it, so subsequent HTTPS traffic is DECRYPTED and captured (works for native apps too, unlike Chrome DevTools). If com.robotactions.dpc is Device Owner, the proxy AND CA are set SILENTLY (installMode "dpc", zero on-device interaction); otherwise it falls back to an adb global proxy (installMode "manual") and the app must already trust user certs. Then drive the app and read flows with android_traffic_flows. The app must trust user certificates (network_security_config, usually a debug build); certificate-pinned apps will not decrypt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`serial`	Yes	Android device serial (adb serial)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains the proxy setup, silent CA installation in DPC mode, fallback to manual adb proxy, and prerequisites around certificate trust. It does not explicitly state that device network settings are modified, but this is strongly implied by 'points the device at it' and the mention of an adb global proxy.

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 detailed but front-loaded with the primary action, then explains modes, prerequisites, and limitations. Every sentence adds value, though it is longer than necessary; it could be tightened slightly without losing important information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (proxy setup, CA installation, fallback modes, prerequisites, and limitations) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, how it behaves in different modes, requirements for success, and next steps. It is complete for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter 'serial' is fully described in the schema as 'Android device serial (adb serial)', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond identifying the device as Android, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: starting TLS inspection on an Android device by bringing up a proxy and pointing the device at it. It distinguishes itself from Chrome DevTools by noting it works for native apps, and the scope (per-device) is explicit.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (to decrypt/capture HTTPS traffic for native apps) and mentions an alternative (Chrome DevTools) by contrast. It also outlines the workflow of driving the app and reading flows with android_traffic_flows. However, it does not explicitly list scenarios where this tool should NOT be used beyond the certificate-pinning limitation.

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?