Install an uploaded app on a device. For Android: installs APK via the Android transport. For iOS: installs IPA . Use app_list to get the file ID first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| udid | Yes | Device UDID to install on | |
| appId | Yes | File ID from app_list |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the install mechanism (APK via Android transport, IPA for iOS) but doesn't describe what happens on failure, whether prior uninstall is needed, permission requirements, or behavior when an app is already installed. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is minimally adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers platform differences and the dependency on app_list without unnecessary fluff. The format of each sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool is a mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and complete schema coverage. The description covers the core install action, platform differences, and the required prerequisite step. However, it doesn't address failure modes, result/response expectations, or whether the device must be in a specific state. Adequate for a straightforward install tool but with gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (udid, appId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the semantic link that appId is the file ID from app_list, which reinforces the schema. This is baseline-3 territory where the schema does the heavy lifting with a small description bonus.
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 states a specific verb+resource ('Install an uploaded app on a device') and differentiates between Android (APK) and iOS (IPA) transports. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like app_list, app_upload, and app_delete, and even references app_list for obtaining the file ID.
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?
The description mentions getting the file ID via app_list first, which is useful usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this versus alternatives like ios_install_app, device_launch_app, or device_uninstall_app. The platform-specific note (Android vs iOS) implies some context but doesn't enumerate exclusions.
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.
