Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

ios_traffic_start

Start TLS inspection on a physical iOS device: brings up a per-device TLS-inspecting proxy and installs a CA-trust + HTTP-proxy config profile, so subsequent HTTPS traffic is DECRYPTED and captured (works for native apps too, unlike Safari DevTools). Then drive the app and read flows with ios_traffic_flows. Defaults to the supervised SILENT install (zero on-device interaction); if no supervision keybag is configured it falls back to a prompt install (user taps Install on the device). Certificate-pinned apps will not decrypt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`udid`	Yes	iOS device UDID
`silent`	No	Supervised silent install (default true). Set false to force the on-device prompt install. Silent requires the device to be supervised and a supervision keybag to be configured on the server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the proxy setup, CA-trust profile installation, decryption behavior, native app support, silent vs. prompt install fallback, the supervision keybag requirement, and the limitation with certificate-pinned apps.

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 front-loaded with the main action and proceeds logically through purpose, native app distinction, follow-up workflow, install modes, and caveat. Every sentence contributes useful behavioral or usage information without unnecessary fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex start-operation with no output schema, the description covers the full behavioral picture: what gets installed, decryption effects, interaction requirements, fallback logic, limitations, and the next step. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the `silent` default, when a fallback to prompt install occurs, and the supervision keybag requirement, going beyond the schema's basic boolean description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start TLS inspection on a physical iOS device.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by explaining it enables decrypted HTTPS capture for native apps 'unlike Safari DevTools' and points to ios_traffic_flows for reading flows.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clear context is provided: the tool is for starting TLS inspection on physical iOS devices, and it explicitly contrasts with Safari DevTools for native app coverage. It also names the follow-up tool ios_traffic_flows, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention status/stop siblings.

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?