MCP Appium Server

Does 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. It states the action ('close') but doesn't explain what 'close' entails—e.g., whether it gracefully terminates the app, leaves it in background, affects app state, or requires specific permissions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and scope. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., what 'close' means, side effects), prerequisites (e.g., requires an active session), and output (e.g., success/failure indication). For a tool in a testing/automation context, this leaves critical gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 action ('close') and target ('the app associated with the current Appium session'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'close-appium' (which likely closes the Appium server/session) or 'terminate-app' (which might force-quit an app), leaving room for ambiguity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active Appium session), exclusions (e.g., not for closing the Appium server itself), or comparisons to siblings like 'close-appium' or 'xcode_terminate_app'. This lack of context could lead to misuse.

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