Report whether Safari/WKWebView interception is currently armed on this device, which page target it is attached to, the active routes, and live hit counters (paused/mocked/aborted/passedThrough/errors). Check the counters to confirm a mock is actually firing — a route that never matches shows mocked: 0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| udid | Yes | Device id (Android serial or iOS UDID) |
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 clearly explains what the tool returns: armed state, page target, active routes, and hit counters (paused/mocked/aborted/passedThrough/errors). It also provides an interpretation hint about mocked: 0, adding transparency about what a zero count means. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, the report-oriented wording strongly implies it.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence structurally lists all the report fields, and the second offers a practical usage tip. It is concise, well-organized, and every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description must explain the return values. It does this thoroughly by enumerating the status attributes and counter names, making it complete for an agent to know what to expect. The usage tip also adds helpful context for verifying mock behavior, making the description fully sufficient for this simple status tool.
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?
The schema fully documents the only parameter (udid) with a description: 'Device id (Android serial or iOS UDID)'. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific information, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description implies the tool operates per-device, which is already covered by the schema.
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's purpose: 'Report whether Safari/WKWebView interception is currently armed on this device, which page target it is attached to, the active routes, and live hit counters'. The specific verb 'Report' and resource 'Safari/WKWebView interception' distinguish it from sibling mock tools like ios_safari_mock_add or ios_safari_mock_remove.
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 gives clear usage context: 'Check the counters to confirm a mock is actually firing — a route that never matches shows mocked: 0.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (to verify mock activity) and how to interpret results. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough without 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.
