Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

ios_find_element

Find a UI element on an iOS device by its accessibility label or text. Returns the element center coordinates (x, y), bounds, and which strategy matched. On no match, returns similar visible labels to retry with. Prefer this (or ios_tap_by_label) over eyeballing coordinates from a screenshot. Requires an active iOS automation session (auto-starts if needed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	Element type filter e.g. XCUIElementTypeButton, XCUIElementTypeCell (optional, used in class chain)
`udid`	Yes	iOS device UDID
`label`	Yes	Accessibility label or visible text of the element to find
`match`	No	How to match `label`. Default "contains" — strict, and the only modes that act without interpretation. "fuzzy" tolerates typos and word-order drift, and is tried ONLY after strict finds nothing; it REFUSES when two candidates are too close rather than guessing between them (e.g. "Sign" vs Sign In / Sign Out), and reports which attribute it matched.
`strategy`	No	Element finding strategy to try first. Defaults to trying class chain → predicate string → accessibility id → name → xpath in order.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values (center coordinates, bounds, which strategy matched), no-match behavior (returns similar labels), and session auto-start. Does not cover error conditions or performance, but is thorough for a non-mutating find operation.

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?

Three sentences plus one usage note. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, return format, no-match behavior, preference guidance, session requirement. No tautology or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and session prerequisites. Missing explicit output schema means return details are described textually but adequately. Edge cases (multiple matches, exact vs visible text nuances) are partially addressed in match parameter description. Complete enough given schema richness.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds significant meaning: explains label context, details match modes (exact/contains/fuzzy with fuzzy's cautious behavior), clarifies type as filter for class chain, and lists default strategy order. This exceeds schema-only info.

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 verb 'Find', the resource 'UI element on an iOS device', and the method 'by its accessibility label or text'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ios_tap_by_label by noting both are preferred over screenshot coordinates.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Prefer this (or ios_tap_by_label) over eyeballing coordinates from a screenshot.' Mentions session requirement and auto-start. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not compare against other finding siblings like device_find_element or session_find_element.

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?