Get a specific flow recording with all its steps. Verifies the recording belongs to the authenticated user. Returns recording metadata and the ordered list of steps with action types, coordinates, element info, and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recordingId | Yes | Flow recording ID (from flow_recording_list) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does state that the tool verifies the recording belongs to the authenticated user, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure. However, it does not discuss privacy implications of ownership verification, failure behavior (what happens on non-owned or missing recordings), or pagination for large recordings.
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, front-loaded with the core action and then details of what is returned. Efficient and information-dense without padding. Only minor loss for not being split into clearer sub-sections.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, verification behavior, and return contents. The ownership verification is a valuable extra detail. It's largely complete for the tool's simplicity and rich sibling context.
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 coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter (recordingId) fully described as 'Flow recording ID (from flow_recording_list)'. The description adds the context that the recording's steps are returned, but the schema already explains the parameter adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool fetches a specific flow recording with its steps, verifies ownership, and returns metadata plus ordered steps with action types, coordinates, element info, and timestamps. The verb 'Get' + resource is specific, and it clearly distinguishes from siblings like flow_recording_list, flow_recording_replay, and flow_recording_save.
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 implies this is a read operation for viewing a recording's details after obtaining its ID from flow_recording_list (as noted in the schema param). However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of how it differs from flow_recording_replay or other step-manipulation tools.
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.
