Launch/activate an app on an iOS device by bundle ID. Uses iOS automation activate if a session is active, falls back to the direct iOS transport.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| udid | Yes | iOS device UDID | |
| bundleId | Yes | App bundle ID to launch |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by explaining the dual-path behavior (automation activate vs. direct transport fallback), which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose failure modes, whether repeated launches reset app state, or what happens if the app is already running. The two-path mechanism is genuinely helpful but leaves behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is a tight two-sentence format. The first sentence defines the primary purpose, and the second explains the internal mechanism. Both sentences earn their place. It's concise without being under-specified, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the purpose being clearly first.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with schema coverage of 100%, the description adequately covers the essentials: what it does and how it does it (the fallback mechanism). It could benefit from noting error cases or dependencies (e.g., whether a session must exist), but for a launch tool with no output schema and simple parameters, it's reasonably complete.
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%, so both parameters (udid and bundleId) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by bundle ID' which aligns with the bundleId parameter but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema's existing field descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the load.
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 what the tool does: 'Launch/activate an app on an iOS device by bundle ID.' This provides a specific verb (launch/activate), resource (app on iOS device), and mechanism (by bundle ID). It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like device_launch_app (generic/cross-platform) and ios_launch_app_in_language (adds locale parameter), though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 explains the internal mechanism ('Uses iOS automation activate if a session is active, falls back to the direct iOS transport'), which implies usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like ios_launch_app_in_language or device_launch_app, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a session active or device connected. The mechanism hint provides partial guidance but no exclusions.
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.
