Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

webpage_wait_for

Poll for an element to appear (and optionally become visible) in the device browser by CSS selector — works on BOTH iOS Safari and Android Chrome. Polls every 250ms inside a single CDP session (no reconnect per tick) until found or timeoutMs elapses. Returns { found, waitedMs } rather than throwing on timeout, so callers can branch on the result. When the selector matches several elements, ANY of them satisfying the test counts as found — so a control duplicated across responsive breakpoints is reported visible when the on-screen copy is.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`udid`	Yes	Device UDID / serial (iOS or Android)
`pageId`	No	Target page/tab id — auto-picked when omitted
`socket`	No	Android only: abstract unix socket name (default: chrome_devtools_remote)
`visible`	No	Also require the element to be visible (has client rects and a laid-out offsetParent, or position:fixed) rather than merely present in the DOM (default: false)
`selector`	Yes	CSS selector to wait for
`timeoutMs`	No	Max time to wait in milliseconds (default: 5000, max: 30000)
`platformVersion`	No	Ignored (kept for compatibility)

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses polling interval (250ms), single CDP session behavior (no reconnect per tick), non-throwing return of {found, waitedMs}, and the 'ANY match counts' semantics for multiple elements. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that significantly help an agent predict outcomes.

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 three sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds critical information: cross-platform support, polling mechanics, return behavior, and edge-case semantics. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly states the return shape ({found, waitedMs}). It also covers platform compatibility, polling behavior, timeout semantics, and the 'any match counts' ambiguity. This is more than sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for most scenarios.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'visible' parameter's behavior (requires client rects/offsetParent or position:fixed), the effect of timeoutMs, and the multi-element match behavior. This contextualizes the parameters beyond their basic type descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: poll for an element by CSS selector in a device browser. It specifies the resource (element in browser) and the verb (poll/wait), and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it works on both iOS Safari and Android Chrome via CDP. This separates it from native UI wait tools like device_wait_for_element.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when waiting for a web element to appear or become visible in a mobile browser. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the 'in the device browser' scope and cross-platform claim imply the appropriate context. No exclusions are stated.

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?