Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

ios_set_device_language

Change the iOS device's system language and / or locale (persistent, affects every app). iOS may relaunch SpringBoard to apply the change — expect a 5-10s flicker, and the value can take a few seconds to read back. Pass a BASE language code ("fr", not "fr-CA"): iOS reports a region-qualified language but refuses to set one, so a regional code is split into its base language plus a locale automatically. For per-app testing without changing the whole device, prefer ios_launch_app_in_language.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`udid`	Yes	iOS device UDID
`locale`	No	POSIX locale, e.g. "fr_FR", "es_US"
`language`	No	ISO 639-1 language code, e.g. "fr", "es", "en"

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses persistence, global impact, the SpringBoard relaunch flicker, the read-back delay, and the automatic splitting of regional codes. No annotations exist to contradict it.

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 concise yet thorough. It front-loads the core purpose, then systematically addresses side effects, parameter nuances, and a usage alternative. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy, making it well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 essential aspects for a mutation tool: purpose, side effects, parameter handling, and usage guidance. It does not explicitly describe return values or success/error behavior, but since no output schema is provided and the side effects are clearly detailed, the omission is minor. The tool is well-specified for correct invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (udid, locale, language). The description adds crucial semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'language' expects a base code like 'fr' not 'fr-CA' and explains how regional codes are split into base language plus locale. This significantly aids correct parameter usage.

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 states a clear, specific verb ('Change') and resource ('iOS device's system language and/or locale'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ios_launch_app_in_language, which is for per-app testing. An agent can immediately understand the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it notes the change is persistent and affects every app, mentions the side effect of SpringBoard relaunch, and directly advises to use ios_launch_app_in_language for per-app testing. This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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?