Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Swipium

Swipium

by GeroPalombo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Device info

qa_device_info
Read-only

Retrieve read-only Android emulator or iOS simulator details, such as model, SDK, locale, screen orientation, packages, and filtered logs, to diagnose app behavior during QA.

Instructions

Read-only device info. Android: model, SDK, ABIs, locale, screen, orientation (listPackages:true adds third-party packages; logs:{…} captures filtered logcat). iOS Simulator: name, runtime, state, screen.

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": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>"
    },
    "name": "qa_device_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
logsNoAndroid: save logcat to an artifact instead. Scans the last `lines` (1000) lines overall; level is the minimum; package also matches a crashed app (its `Process:` PID); grep is a regex, context = lines kept after each match (40 shows a FATAL stack; or use buffer:"crash"); since = "5m" / "90s" / "MM-DD hh:mm:ss".
sessionIdYes
listPackagesNoInclude installed third-party package names.
packageFilterNoSubstring filter for the package list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's "Read-only" is consistent with them. It adds real behavioral signal — that listPackages:true pulls installed third-party packages and that logs:{…} triggers a filtered logcat capture — but says nothing about where that capture goes (the schema hints it becomes an artifact) or about cost/latency of the scan.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the nature of the tool and organized by platform, with no filler. The parenthetical is dense and telegraphic, which costs a little readability, but every clause carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description does the work of enumerating return fields per platform, which it does well. For a tool with a nested logs object and artifact side effects it could go further — notably telling the agent that captured logs land as an artifact retrievable elsewhere — but it is sufficient to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 75% schema coverage the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the coupling between flags and outputs (listPackages adds packages, logs captures filtered logcat), which the schema only states mechanically. packageFilter is left entirely to the schema, which does cover it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read-only device info") and then enumerates exactly what is returned per platform (model, SDK, ABIs, locale, screen, orientation for Android; name, runtime, state, screen for iOS Simulator). An agent knows precisely what data this yields, though it never contrasts itself with near-neighbours such as qa_inspect or qa_ios.

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?

Usage is only implied: the platform split tells the agent Android vs iOS Simulator behavior, and the parenthetical hints that listPackages/logs are opt-in extras. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives (e.g. qa_inspect or qa_get_artifact for reading the captured log).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools