Add an item to a suite. itemType 'test' references a flow recording (category='test'); 'testPlan' references a plan. orderIndex controls position (appended to the end if omitted).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | Item id — a flow recording id (itemType='test') or plan id (itemType='testPlan') | |
| suiteId | Yes | Suite id to add the item to | |
| itemType | Yes | What itemId points at | |
| orderIndex | No | Position within the suite (appended if omitted) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Add' implies mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires existing suite/item IDs, whether duplicates are prevented, whether adding is idempotent, or what happens if the item doesn't exist. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence efficiently packs itemType semantics and orderIndex behavior. Minimal waste, reasonably 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?
For a simple 4-param tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the itemType semantics and orderIndex behavior. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema absent, it could disclose what the tool returns on success/failure, which is a meaningful gap.
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?
The description adds value by mapping itemType values to referenced resources ('test' references a flow recording with category='test'; 'testPlan' references a plan), which the schema enum alone doesn't convey. It also explains orderIndex behavior (appended if omitted). However, since schema covers 100% of parameters, the baseline is 3 and the description provides modest additional context, keeping it at that level.
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?
Description clearly states the verb ('Add'), resource ('item'), and target ('suite'), with the itemType field distinguishing between flow recordings and plans. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like test_suite_create or test_suite_run, though the add-item semantic is reasonably distinct on its own.
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 implies usage context (add test or testPlan items to a suite) and explains orderIndex behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. test_suite_create/test_suite_run, nor mention any prerequisites like suite existence or whether items need prior creation before being added.
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.
