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 states the action ('Send text') which implies a write operation, but doesn't describe what happens on failure (e.g., if element not found), whether it waits for element visibility, how it handles existing text, or error conditions. The timeout parameter suggests some waiting behavior, but this isn't explained in the description itself.

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 communicates the core purpose, method, and platform constraint without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a focused 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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and platform context but lacks behavioral details about how the operation works, what it returns, or error handling. Given the complexity of mobile automation and the presence of many sibling tools, more context about when and how to use this specific tool would be beneficial.

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 (predicateString, text, timeoutMs). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('Send text') and target ('to an element'), and specifies the platform constraint ('iOS only'). It distinguishes from generic 'send-keys' by mentioning the iOS predicate string method, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'send-keys-by-ios-class-chain' which serves a similar purpose with a different locator strategy.

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 context through 'iOS only' and 'using iOS predicate string', suggesting it's for iOS automation with predicate-based element location. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'send-keys-by-ios-class-chain' or regular 'send-keys', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an active Appium session or iOS device/simulator.

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