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 states the action but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires device interaction permissions, whether it's safe for automation (e.g., potential side effects), or what happens on failure (e.g., if coordinates are invalid). For a gesture tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 without any fluff or redundancy. It's 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?

Given the complexity of a gesture tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, side effects), usage context, or what to expect after invocation, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable tool selection and 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., coordinates and duration). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating 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 ('perform a swipe gesture') and the target ('on the screen'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'scroll-screen' or 'perform-w3c-gesture', which might also involve screen gestures, so it doesn't fully distinguish from 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active appium session), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'scroll-screen' or 'long-press', leaving the agent to guess based on context alone.

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