MCP Scrcpy Vision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool establishes a WiFi connection, requires TCP/IP mode enabled beforehand (implying a dependency), uses a default port of 5555, and needs the device's IP address. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if connection fails) or side effects, leaving some 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites and usage notes in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second specifies prerequisites, and the third provides practical guidance. There is no wasted text.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does well for a connection tool with 2 parameters. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and basic usage, but lacks details on return values (e.g., success/failure status) or error handling. For a tool that establishes a network connection, this is a minor gap, but overall it's mostly complete.

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%, with both parameters (ipAddress and port) well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the default port is 5555 (already in the schema) and implies ipAddress is required (already in required array). No additional syntax or format details are provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action (connect to device over WiFi using ADB) and resource (Android device), distinguishing it from siblings like android.adb.enableTcpip (which enables TCP/IP mode) and android.adb.disconnectWifi (which disconnects). The verb 'connects' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to connect over WiFi) and provides clear prerequisites: the device must already have TCP/IP mode enabled, requiring use of android.adb.enableTcpip first while connected via USB. It also references android.adb.getDeviceIp as an alternative for obtaining the IP address, offering complete guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.