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 states the action ('clear text') but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., does it simulate user input or directly set value? Does it require the element to be focused? What happens on failure? For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to scan. No unnecessary words or redundancy are present.

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 automation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., error handling, interaction method), usage context (e.g., when to prefer this over other tools), and output (e.g., what's returned on success/failure). For a mutation tool in a rich sibling set, this is inadequate.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('selector' and 'strategy') with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., examples of selectors, default behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Clear text from an input element' states a clear action ('clear text') and target ('input element'), but it's somewhat vague about scope (e.g., does it clear all text or specific text?) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'send-keys' (which might input text) or 'tap-element' (which might focus an element). It avoids tautology but lacks specificity for a UI automation context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'send-keys' with empty string, 'tap-element' to focus then clear, or other UI interaction tools). The description implies usage for clearing text but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., element must be interactable) or exclusions (e.g., not for non-input elements).

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