Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

ios_accessibility_audit

Run an accessibility audit on the CURRENT screen of an iOS device — Apple's own XCTest audit engine (the same one Xcode's "Audit for Accessibility" button runs), so findings match what Apple reports. Audits whatever is in the foreground right now, so navigate to the screen you care about FIRST (ios_tap_by_label / ios_navigate_url), then call this. Reports contrast failures, tap targets under 44×44pt, missing/unhelpful labels, elements the accessibility engine cannot see, Dynamic Type and clipped-text problems, and wrong traits. Each issue carries the offending element's label, type and screen-point rect — the rect centre is directly tappable with ios_tap. Pass auditTypes to narrow the run (much faster on dense screens). TIMING: the audit sees the screen as it is at that instant — running it immediately after a launch or navigation, while the UI is still animating in, under-reports (measured on device: 4 issues mid-animation vs 5 once settled). Let the screen settle first. Requires iOS 17+ (errors on older) and an active iOS automation session (auto-starts if needed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rect`	No	Narrow the result to a region in screen POINTS, skipping the label lookup. Takes precedence over `element`. A finding is kept when its centre falls inside this rect.
`udid`	Yes	iOS device UDID
`element`	No	Narrow the result to one element: its accessibility label, resolved on device the same way ios_tap_by_label resolves it. XCTest can only audit a whole app, so this filters the findings to those inside that element's bounds — it cannot surface anything the full-screen audit did not already report. Errors if the label matches nothing, rather than silently returning the whole screen.
`auditType`	No	Convenience alias for a single-entry auditTypes, e.g. "contrast".
`auditTypes`	No	Audit types to run; omit for all of them. "contrast" = Text/background contrast below the WCAG threshold; "elementDetection" = Elements the accessibility engine cannot detect; "hitRegion" = Tap targets smaller than the 44×44pt minimum; "sufficientElementDescription" = Controls with a missing or unhelpful label; "dynamicType" = Text that does not scale with Dynamic Type; "textClipped" = Text clipped at larger content sizes; "trait" = Wrong or missing accessibility traits.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It states that results match Apple's reports, that the audit sees the screen at the instant of execution and can under-report during animations (with measured evidence), that it requires iOS 17+, and that it auto-starts a session if needed. It also explains the element parameter's filtering limitation and error behavior. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 every sentence provides necessary operational context: purpose, equivalence, navigation prerequisite, issue details, timing caveat, and requirements. It is somewhat long, but for a tool with this complexity, the structure is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers prerequisites (iOS 17+, session), expected output (issue details with element, type, rect), parameter semantics (auditTypes, element), and timing behavior. With no output schema, it compensates by describing what each issue includes. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool 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 extra meaning beyond the schema: it explains the element binding uses the same resolution as ios_tap_by_label, clarifies that XCTest can only audit the whole app and this parameter only filters, and notes that auditTypes narrow the run for speed. This enriches the schema without replacing it.

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 performs an accessibility audit on the current iOS screen, using Apple's XCTest engine. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the current-screen scope and the specific audit checks (contrast, tap targets, labels, traits). This is a specific verb+resource+scope with no ambiguity.

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: after navigating to the target screen, and it explicitly names companion tools (ios_tap_by_label / ios_navigate_url) for prerequisite actions. It also mentions timing constraints and requirements like iOS 17+. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare against alternative audit tools, though no direct siblings exist.

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?