MCP Appium Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions sending a key event but fails to describe critical traits like required device state (e.g., unlocked, app open), permissions, side effects (e.g., navigation changes), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 that directly states the tool's purpose with relevant examples. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error handling, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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%, with the parameter 'keyEvent' documented as 'Key event name or code'. The description adds minimal value by providing examples (HOME, BACK), which slightly clarify semantics but don't go beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('send') and resource ('key event to the device'), with examples like HOME and BACK that help specify the action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'press-key-code' or 'send-keys', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 'press-key-code' or 'send-keys-to-device' from the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, device states, or specific scenarios, offering only a basic example without usage boundaries.

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