MCP Appium Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but reveals nothing about behavior: no indication of whether this requires an active appium session, what happens if no app is running, error conditions, or return format. 'Get' implies a read operation, but without annotations, the description doesn't confirm safety or provide operational context.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't address what the tool returns (just the package name? with metadata?), error conditions, dependencies, or behavioral context. Given the Appium testing context implied by sibling tools, more operational guidance would be helpful for agent decision-making.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as no parameter information is needed and the description doesn't attempt to add unnecessary 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current active app package name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list-installed-packages' or 'get-current-activity', but the specificity of 'current active' provides some implicit distinction. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether an app must be running), comparison to similar tools like 'get-current-activity' or 'list-installed-packages', or context about when this information is needed. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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