Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

jira_create_issue

Create a new Jira issue. Returns the new issue key and browse URL. ALWAYS confirm with the user before calling — this is a mutating operation. If the user mentions "PROJ-X" they want a comment, not a new issue. Use jira_get_issue first to ensure you have the right project context. Defaults issueType to "Task" if not specified.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`labels`	No	Optional labels to attach. Each label must be a single token (no spaces).
`summary`	Yes	Short issue title. Keep under 200 chars; longer summaries get truncated by Jira.
`issueType`	No	Issue type name (e.g. "Bug", "Task", "Story"). Defaults to "Task" if omitted. Must match a type available in the target project.
`projectKey`	Yes	Jira project key (e.g. "ACME", "PROJ"). All uppercase letters/digits/underscore.
`description`	No	Issue body. Plain text — markdown is not interpreted. Convert markdown to plain prose before passing.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutating operation requiring user confirmation, mentions the 'Task' default, and notes summary truncation behavior. It doesn't mention required permissions or reversibility, but provides solid behavioral context for a create operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences and highly information-dense with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and return values, then adds usage guards. Slightly dense but every sentence earns its place; could be considered a bit packed for easy scanning.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, detailed parameter descriptions, and no output schema needed (returns a key and URL as stated), the description is quite complete. It covers confirmation behavior, defaults, sibling differentiation, and return values. Minor gaps: no permission requirements or API rate-limit notes, but adequate for a creation tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters well. The description adds value with the 'Defaults issueType to Task' hint and confirms confirmation behavior, but doesn't meaningfully extend parameter meaning beyond the schema (which already has excellent per-parameter descriptions). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Create a new Jira issue' with a specific verb+resource, and immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_get_issue and jira_search by noting its mutating nature. The nuance about 'PROJ-X' meaning a comment not a new issue further sharpens the purpose.

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?

Excellent guidance: it explicitly states when NOT to use the tool ('PROJ-X' means comment, not new issue), tells the agent to confirm with the user before calling, and instructs using jira_get_issue first for context. This is explicit when/when-not guidance with alternatives named.

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?