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 'simulate' implies this is a non-destructive action that mimics user behavior, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific device states, what happens if the device is locked, or any side effects. The iOS-only constraint is helpful but insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise - a single parenthetical phrase that communicates both the core function and the platform limitation. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential 'what' and platform constraint. However, given the complex mobile testing context with many sibling tools and no annotations, it should ideally clarify the relationship to 'xcode_shake_device' and provide more behavioral context about when and how to use this simulation.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, earning a baseline score of 4 for parameter-free tools.

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 ('simulate shake gesture') and specifies the platform constraint ('iOS only'), which distinguishes it from generic gesture tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'xcode_shake_device', which appears to serve a similar function in the Xcode simulator context.

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 minimal guidance - it only indicates this is for iOS devices. No information is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'xcode_shake_device' or other gesture tools in the sibling list, nor any prerequisites or context for when shaking simulation is appropriate.

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