mcp-android-emulator

wait_for_ui_stable

Wait for the Android UI to stop changing after animations, ensuring stable screenshots and reliable interactions.

Instructions

Wait for the UI to stop changing (useful after animations)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "wait_for_ui_stable"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`timeout`	No	Timeout in milliseconds (default: 5000)
`checkInterval`	No	Check interval in milliseconds (default: 500)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (waiting for UI stability) but does not state the outcome when the timeout is reached (e.g., whether it errors or returns a boolean). No annotation contradiction since none exist.

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?

One sentence, direct, with a parenthetical giving context. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, but the description omits the return/error behavior on timeout. The output schema is absent, so the description should clarify what happens after the wait completes or times out. Otherwise, the description covers the main purpose and usage context.

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?

Both parameters (timeout, checkInterval) are fully described in the input schema with defaults and ranges. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the verb 'Wait' with the resource 'UI' and specifies the condition 'stop changing'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wait_for_element and wait_for_element_gone, which target specific elements.

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 explicitly provides a usage scenario: 'useful after animations'. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or contrast with alternative wait tools.

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