Get or update iOS automation settings on an iOS device. Call without settings to get current values. Pass settings object to update. Requires an active iOS automation session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| udid | Yes | iOS device UDID | |
| settings | No | Settings to update (e.g. {"mjpegServerScreenshotQuality": 25}). Omit to get current settings. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it correctly identifies the tool as both a getter and mutator, it doesn't disclose what settings are available, what the response format is, whether updates are reversible, or potential side effects of updating settings. The 'Requires an active iOS automation session' is useful but minimal for a dual-mode tool.
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 compact—three sentences covering purpose, mode selection, and prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the core purpose in sentence one. No wasted words, though it could arguably mention the response shape. Efficient and well-structured.
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 a nested settings object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the dual get/update behavior and prerequisite, but given the absence of annotations and output schema, it doesn't fully compensate: it doesn't describe what fields of settings are changeable, what the get response looks like, or any failure/error behavior. Adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.
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 the schema already documents both parameters well. The settings parameter includes an example ({"mjpegServerScreenshotQuality": 25}), which adds concrete usage meaning. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the example in the schema itself carries the semantic weight.
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 states a clear dual purpose: 'Get or update iOS automation settings on an iOS device' with a specific verb (get/update) and resource (iOS automation settings). It distinguishes the get-vs-update behavior by invocation mode, and the 'Requires an active iOS automation session' prerequisite further scopes it. Clearly distinguishes from the many sibling ios_* tools by focusing on settings management.
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 invocation guidance: 'Call without settings to get current values. Pass settings object to update.' This tells the agent exactly how to use the get vs update modes. It also notes the prerequisite of an active iOS automation session. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools when not to use it, but the practical guidance is strong.
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.
