MCP Appium Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'terminate and relaunch,' implying a destructive mutation, but does not specify side effects (e.g., loss of app state, session persistence), permissions required, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that alters app state.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Reset the app') and efficiently elaborates with 'terminate and relaunch' in parentheses. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain behavioral traits like state loss, error handling, or what 'reset' entails beyond the basic action, leaving the agent under-informed for safe invocation.

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 appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing solely on the tool's action. A baseline of 4 is applied as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without redundancy.

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 ('Reset the app') and specifies the resource ('associated with the current Appium session'), with the parenthetical 'terminate and relaunch' providing additional clarity on what 'reset' entails. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'close-app' or 'launch-app', which handle similar app lifecycle operations, leaving some 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, such as 'close-app' or 'launch-app' for partial app lifecycle management, or 'xcode_terminate_app' for simulator-specific contexts. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite conditions, offering only a basic functional statement.

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