MCP Appium Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions capturing 'all UI elements' but doesn't specify what 'capture' entails (e.g., does it return a list, save to memory, or require permissions?), potential side effects (e.g., performance impact), or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by hinting at parameters) to enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity of a UI capture tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional context about the parameters, such as default behaviors or interactions between them. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though no extra value is provided.

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 purpose: 'Capture all UI elements and their locators for future use.' It specifies the verb ('capture'), resource ('UI elements and their locators'), and intended outcome ('for future use'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract-locators' or 'generate-element-locators,' which appear to have related functionality, preventing a score of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'extract-locators' and 'generate-element-locators' present, there's no indication of scenarios where 'capture-ui-locators' is preferred, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves usage ambiguous.

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