Rotate an iPhone or iPad interface to portrait, upside-down, or landscape orientation during app testing. Specify the target orientation and optional device to control the screen layout.
Rotate the device's interface orientation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | Device UDID or name substring. Defaults to the select_device choice, then IOS_DEVICE_MCP_DEVICE, else the single USB-connected device. | |
| orientation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Rotate' implies a state-changing operation, but the description does not disclose whether a device must be selected or connected, whether running apps are affected, whether the change is persistent, or whether orientation support varies by app or device.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. For a simple orientation-setting action, this is appropriately concise, though brevity contributes to the gaps scored elsewhere.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only half of its parameters are described in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining device selection behavior, orientation semantics, prerequisites, or expected effects, leaving important context for an agent incomplete.
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 coverage is only 50%. The optional device parameter is well documented in the schema itself, while the required orientation parameter has an enum but no explanation of the values or effects. The description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'interface'.
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 states a specific verb (rotate) and resource (the device's interface orientation). No sibling tool in the list covers orientation control, so it is clearly distinguishable from the surrounding device-interaction tools.
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?
It says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, prerequisites such as an active device connection, or any alternative approach. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.