Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

ios_gesture_path_hid

Replay a freeform stroke as ONE continuous HID touch (no automation session needed) — the direct input path is live-steerable, so curves, arcs, signatures, and unlock patterns land exactly. points are iOS screen points. Minimum 2. Single-contact only. Returns "no HID available" on iOS 17.x / no-tunnel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`norm`	No	If true, x/y (and path points) are 0..1 FRACTIONS of the screen — pass `pixelInScreenshot ÷ screenshotSize` directly (scale-free, matches the frontend, avoids point-guessing). Default false = iOS screen points.
`udid`	Yes	iOS device UDID
`points`	Yes	Ordered waypoints of the stroke (first = touch-down, last = lift)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that no automation session is needed, the path is live-steerable, it is single-contact only, and returns 'no HID available' on iOS 17.x/no-tunnel. These are behavioral traits beyond what the schema or name imply.

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?

The description is compact: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then deliver key constraints and error behavior. Every sentence adds value, with no 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?

The description covers the main behavioral aspects, constraints, and error case, which is solid given no output schema. However, it does not describe what a successful return looks like, nor does it explicitly compare to very similar siblings like ios_gesture_path. Minor gaps, but overall complete enough for a moderately complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains all parameters in detail, including norm's fractional behavior and points' structure. The description adds only redundant notes like 'points are iOS screen points' and 'Minimum 2', which are already in the schema. Thus it does not meaningfully add beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Replay a freeform stroke as ONE continuous HID touch'. It distinguishes from automation sessions and mentions concrete use cases (curves, arcs, signatures, unlock patterns), which differentiates it from sibling tools like ios_swipe_hid or ios_tap_hid.

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 gives clear context for when to use: for freeform strokes needing precision, with 'no automation session needed' and 'direct input path is live-steerable'. It also notes a constraint (single-contact) and an environment limitation (iOS 17.x / no-tunnel). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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?