MCP Appium Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the conditional behavior ('if it's currently visible') but doesn't mention what happens if the keyboard isn't visible (error? no-op?), whether this requires specific device states, or any side effects. For a UI manipulation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 states exactly what the tool does with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameter-less tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 simple UI control tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and behavioral gaps (like not specifying what happens when the keyboard isn't visible), it leaves important context uncovered. The description works for basic understanding but doesn't provide complete operational guidance.

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 already fully documents the empty input. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 ('hide') and target ('keyboard') with a conditional ('if it's currently visible'), providing specific verb+resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but given the unique nature of keyboard hiding among many UI/device control tools, the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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 implies usage when the keyboard is visible, but doesn't provide explicit when-not scenarios or alternatives. Among siblings like 'send-keys' or 'tap-element' that might involve keyboard interaction, there's no guidance on when to choose this tool over others or prerequisites for its use.

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