bc-rig

mobile_act

Operate Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central mobile app. Use reference selectors for tap, type, wait, and manage actions, returning compact state.

Instructions

Operate MobileNAV. Use @m refs for tap/type/wait. Returns compact state, avoiding a separate observe call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "mobile_act"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	No	.mnlc path for connect
`value`	No	Text for type; never echoed or stored
`action`	Yes
`target`	No	@m ref preferred; exact id/text fallback
`observe`	No		compact
`snapshot`	No
`timeoutMs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.0Jul 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), and the description adds that value text is never echoed or stored, and returns compact state. However, it does not disclose potential destructive actions (e.g., reset) or side effects beyond the return.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and key usage, with no wasted words. Every line adds value.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers core behavior but omits error handling, action details, and return format beyond 'compact state'. Additional completeness would help for such a complex tool.

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?

With only 43% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to target (@m refs) and observe (compact state), but fails to document snapshot or timeoutMs parameters. The schema enums for action and observe are clear, but no additional context is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool operates MobileNAV with actions like tap/type/wait, and distinguishes from mobile_observe by returning compact state. However, it doesn't explicitly list all actions or define 'MobileNAV', leaving some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises using @m refs for target parameters and implies using this tool instead of mobile_observe for state, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings like browser_act.

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

Deploy Server