Find an element on the page. Returns elementId for use with click/sendKeys. Strategies: "css selector", "xpath", "id", "name", "link text", "partial link text", "tag name", "class name".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| using | Yes | Locator strategy (e.g. "css selector", "xpath", "id") | |
| value | Yes | Locator value (e.g. "#login-btn", "//button[@id='submit']") | |
| sessionId | Yes | Session ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains what the tool does (find element, return elementId) and lists all locator strategies, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose behavior on no-match (error vs empty), whether it returns first match, or any timeout behavior. For a finding tool with zero annotations, this is moderately adequate but leaves some behavioral gaps.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then valuable strategy list. No waste. Efficiently sized.
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?
Schema covers 100% of 3 parameters, no output schema, moderate tool complexity. The description explains the purpose, return value (elementId), and available strategies. It's reasonably complete for a find-element tool, though it doesn't note relationship to siblings or failure behavior. Given full schema coverage and the straightforward nature of the tool, this is adequate.
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 all 3 parameters with examples. The description adds value by listing all valid locator strategies and explaining the return value (elementId), which goes beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does heavy lifting but description adds strategy enumeration.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Find an element on the page' with explicit return value (elementId). Distinguishes from siblings like device_find_element, ios_find_element, and webpage_* tools by centering on session context. The strategy list adds precision.
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 states what it does and lists strategies, but doesn't explicitly say when to use it vs siblings (session_*, webpage_*, device_*, ios_* find tools). No exclusions or alternative recommendations given. Usage context is implied but not explicitly differentiated from the many similar find tools among siblings.
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.
