Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

app_upload

Upload an app build (.apk/.ipa) to your App Library. Send the file in chunks: base64-encode at most 50MB of the file per call as fileData, with chunkIndex (0-based) and totalChunks; the build is registered when the last chunk arrives. A file up to 50MB may be sent in one call without chunkIndex/totalChunks. .ipa files are re-signed for your devices on the way in unless skipResign is true. Returns the id that app_install and appium:app "ra-app://" use.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fileData`	Yes	Base64-encoded file data — at most 50MB decoded per call
`fileName`	Yes	File name (e.g. "myapp.apk" or "myapp.ipa")
`userEmail`	No	User email for file ownership (defaults to the authenticated user)
`chunkIndex`	No	Chunk index (0-based) for chunked uploads
`skipResign`	No	Keep an .ipa exactly as uploaded (it is already signed for the target devices)
`totalChunks`	No	Total number of chunks for chunked uploads

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / chunkIndex / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
changedInput schema / properties / chunkIndex / type
```
Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
```

changedInput schema / properties / fileData / description

Previous value: -"Base64-encoded file data (max ~100MB per chunk)"New value: +"Base64-encoded file data — at most 50MB decoded per call"

addedInput schema / properties / skipResign

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Keep an .ipa exactly as uploaded (it is already signed for the target devices)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / totalChunks / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
changedInput schema / properties / totalChunks / type
```
Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
```

First observedAug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains that the build is only registered when the last chunk arrives, that .ipa files are re-signed unless skipResign is true, and that the tool returns an id used downstream. These are non-obvious behavioral details beyond a simple 'upload' statement.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Five sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, chunking protocol, single-call shortcut, re-signing behavior, and return value. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 6 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the chunked upload mechanics, the boundary condition for single-call uploads, the .ipa transformation behavior, and the return value with its downstream consumers. The agent has enough to call it correctly.

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. The description adds real semantic value by explaining the chunkIndex/totalChunks protocol, the 50MB per-call limit, the single-call shortcut, and the skipResign behavior for .ipa files, which goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Upload an app build (.apk/.ipa) to your App Library.' It clearly distinguishes this from related sibling tools like app_install by defining this as the upload step and noting that the returned id is consumed by app_install.

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 contextual guidance: it explains the chunking workflow, when chunking can be skipped (files up to 50MB), and how the response id feeds into app_install/appium:app. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use this tool or name alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?