Start capturing Android device UI interactions to record test actions for automated testing and app navigation.
Start recording test actions
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": "Start-Recording-Tool"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not disclose side effects such as whether the previous recording is cleared, whether a new session is created, or whether this must be paired with Stop-Recording-Tool.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Start recording test actions' contains only necessary information for a zero-parameter tool. No word is wasted, and nothing extraneous is included.
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 simplicity, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks workflow context around the recording lifecycle. It does not mention that this tool should typically be followed by Stop-Recording-Tool, nor does it clarify whether the tool is stateful or affects existing recordings.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. As a baseline for zero parameters, the score is 4; the description does not need to add parameter details.
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 'Start recording test actions' clearly states a specific verb ('start') and a distinct resource ('recording test actions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like Stop-Recording-Tool and Clear-Recording-Tool.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many recording-related siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, workflow order, or alternatives such as Clear-Recording-Tool, making the usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.