Scroll the screen until a UI element with the given label becomes visible, then return its coordinates. Eliminates multi-swipe guesswork for off-screen content. Requires an active iOS automation session (auto-starts if needed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| udid | Yes | iOS device UDID | |
| label | Yes | Accessibility label or text of the element to scroll to | |
| direction | No | Scroll direction (default: down) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions session auto-starting and that it returns coordinates, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose behaviors like scroll speed, maximum scroll attempts, whether it can fail if element isn't found, or any timeout behavior.
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?
Three sentences, zero wasted words. Each sentence earns its place: what it does, why it's valuable, and session requirements. Well front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence.
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 no output schema and no annotations, but is a relatively simple scroll-to-element operation. The description covers the main action, return value (coordinates), and session handling. Missing details like default scroll behavior, failure conditions, or whether it scrolls in a scrollable container, but adequate for the tool's complexity.
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% for all three parameters (udid, label, direction), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the label is an 'accessibility label or text' which maps to the schema, but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what's already documented in 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 scrolls the screen until a UI element with a given label becomes visible and returns its coordinates. It uses a specific verb+resource structure and differentiates itself from sibling tools like device_scroll and device_scroll_to_element by being iOS-specific and auto-starting sessions.
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 it eliminates multi-swipe guesswork, giving clear context for when to use it (off-screen content). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, though its iOS prefix and auto-session behavior imply when it's appropriate. Missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
