Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Swipium

Swipium

by GeroPalombo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Resolve the best test target

qa_resolve_target
Read-only

Selects an Android emulator or iOS simulator for testing deterministically, honoring platform, device, and artifact filters; returns choice, alternatives, or a boot plan without booting.

Instructions

Pick the emulator/simulator to test on, deterministically (honors platform, device, artifact; prefers an online one, else plans a boot). Returns selected, reason, alternatives, willBoot. include: context (framework, artifacts, devices, toolchain) and/or plan (READY/BLOCKED/UNSAFE workflows). Boots nothing; physical phones are unsupported.

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": "qa_resolve_target"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deviceNoExplicit adb serial / simulator udid or name / AVD name.
includeNoExtra sections: context, plan.
platformNo
sessionIdNo
projectRootNo
preferRealDeviceNoRefused (PHYSICAL_DEVICE_UNSUPPORTED) when a phone is visible.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description usefully adds that nothing is booted and that physical devices are rejected. However, it doesn't say what 'UNSAFE' workflows mean in practice or how failures surface, leaving real behavioral gaps for a tool that returns a decision.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and policy, then return fields, then inclusion hints. The 'include: context (...) and/or plan (...)' fragment is terse and slightly cryptic, but nothing is redundant.

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 naming the return fields (selected, reason, alternatives, willBoot) is valuable and mostly fills that gap. With six optional parameters and a decision-oriented output, the definition is nearly complete; only the role of sessionId/projectRoot is left unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%. The description clarifies the 'include' parameter (context/plan) and that platform/device steer the choice, but sessionId and projectRoot are undocumented in both places, and 'artifact' is mentioned even though it is not a top-level parameter. Baseline 3 fits given partial schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Pick the emulator/simulator to test on' — plus the selection policy (deterministic, prefers an online device, otherwise plans a boot). An agent can distinguish this from qa_device_info (information) and qa_prepare_target (boots a target) without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear usage boundaries: 'Boots nothing' and 'physical phones are unsupported', so the agent knows this is a selection-only step that must be followed by a prepare/boot step for unsupported cases. It does not explicitly name the sibling to call for booting, which keeps it short of a 5.

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