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 mentions scrolling behavior but doesn't describe what 'scroll' means operationally (e.g., smooth vs. jump, visual feedback, timing), whether it requires specific screen states, or what happens on failure. For a UI interaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this simple 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 UI interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what 'scroll' means in this context, what visual or state changes occur, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'swipe'. The context signals show this is part of a mobile testing/automation suite where such details matter.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('direction' and 'distance') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without adding value.

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 ('scroll') and resource ('the screen') with a specific direction specification. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'swipe' or 'scroll-to-element' by focusing on general screen scrolling rather than targeted actions, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 'swipe' or 'scroll-to-element', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context requirements. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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