Get detailed info about a device including physical screen size. device_tap/device_swipe use PHYSICAL pixel coordinates — same as page_source bounds. No scaling needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| udid | Yes | Device serial number (UDID) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral insight about coordinate systems (physical pixels matching page_source bounds) which is genuinely useful beyond what the schema shows. However, it doesn't mention return format, whether it's read-only (safe), or any side effects. The coordinate insight is valuable context but the behavioral profile is partially disclosed.
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 sentences, both high-value. The first states the purpose; the second delivers the critical coordinate-system context that links this tool to gesture tools. No filler, no redundancy. This is an exemplary concise description.
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?
Given a read-only info tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (detailed info, screen size), why it matters (physical pixel coordinates for gestures), and how it relates to page_source bounds. The coordinate guidance fills a potential knowledge gap. It could arguably benefit from a note about output structure, but the no-output-schema context lowers that burden.
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% (the udid parameter is documented as 'Device serial number (UDID)'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The udid parameter is self-explanatory given the sibling tool family and general device tool context.
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 clearly states it gets detailed device info including physical screen size. It distinguishes from siblings like ios_device_info, device_battery, device_network_info by focusing on general device info and specifically calling out the physical screen size relevance to coordinate systems. However, it doesn't fully enumerate what 'detailed info' includes beyond screen size.
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 provides clear context on when this matters: device_tap/device_swipe use physical pixel coordinates, so retrieving device info (screen size) is relevant before gesture operations. This implicitly guides the agent to fetch this before performing coordinate-based interactions. It doesn't name an alternative tool explicitly, but the coordinate guidance is actionable context.
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.
