MCP Appium Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' attributes, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires element visibility, what happens if the element doesn't exist, error handling, or the format of returned attributes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (a read operation with parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'attributes' include (e.g., HTML attributes like 'id', 'class'), the return format, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('selector' and 'strategy'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of attribute output or parameter interactions. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('all available attributes of an element'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-element-text' or 'get-element-tree', which also retrieve element properties but focus on different aspects. The purpose is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

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 siblings like 'get-element-text' (for text content) and 'get-element-tree' (for hierarchical structure), there's no indication of when retrieving attributes is preferred. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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