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. While 'Launch an app' implies an action that changes device state, it doesn't specify what happens (e.g., does it bring app to foreground, does it require specific permissions, what errors might occur). The description lacks details about side effects, error conditions, or expected outcomes.

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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and gets directly to the point without 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?

For a tool that performs device operations with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'launch' entails operationally, what happens on success/failure, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. The context demands more behavioral and usage information.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (deviceId, packageName, activityName). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Launch') and target ('an app on an Android device'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'launch-appium-app' or 'xcode_launch_app', which appear to serve similar purposes on different platforms or contexts.

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 like 'launch-appium-app' or 'xcode_launch_app' from the sibling list. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device must be connected, app must be installed) or usage constraints.

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