Mobile Next MCP

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

The annotations include 'destructiveHint: true', indicating this is a mutation operation, which the description's 'Install' action aligns with. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as platform-specific file requirements implied by the schema but not explicitly stated. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers little extra insight into effects like app overwriting or installation time.

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, efficient sentence ('Install an app on mobile device') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters), the description is minimal but adequate with annotations covering the destructive hint and schema covering parameters. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values or potential errors, and it misses usage context, leaving gaps in completeness for effective agent invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters ('device' and 'path'), including their purposes and formats. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying parameter interactions or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without compensating value.

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 verb ('Install') and resource ('app on mobile device'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mobile_launch_app' or 'mobile_uninstall_app' beyond the basic action, missing specific scope or constraints that would make it fully distinctive.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'mobile_launch_app' for starting an already installed app or 'mobile_uninstall_app' for removal. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a device from 'mobile_list_available_devices') or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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