open_deeplinkOpen a specific screen in an Android app by providing a URI or intent action. Optionally specify the target package to ensure the correct app handles the deep link.
Jump straight to a screen via URI or intent action; package pins the target app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | ||
| device | No | ||
| package | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and package role, without mentioning error handling, prerequisites (e.g., app installed), side effects, or return behavior. For a tool that opens external screens, this is a significant gap.
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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and the package qualifier. However, it is almost too brief, missing important details, so it doesn't earn a 5.
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?
With 3 parameters (only one required), no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain what happens on success or failure, how the device parameter affects execution, or the exact URI format. Even with an output schema present, the description lacks critical context for correct 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'package pins the target app' but leaves 'uri' and 'device' entirely unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's field names, failing to clarify URI format or device selection.
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 tool's function: jumping to a screen via URI or intent action, with package pinning the target app. It uses a specific verb (jump) and resource (screen), and the 'package pins' detail adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like launch_app or start_app, which also handle app opening, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions like 'use when you have a URI' or 'prefer over launch_app for deep links'. The description is purely declarative and leaves the agent to infer usage context from the name and basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.