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 but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose effects like whether switching is reversible, potential side effects on app state, error conditions, or permissions required, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loads the core purpose with a clarifying example. There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use in an automation context.

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 one parameter ('context') documented as 'Context to switch to'. The description adds minimal value with an example ('e.g., NATIVE_APP, WEBVIEW'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema implies.

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 ('Switch between') and target ('contexts'), with a helpful example of context types ('e.g., NATIVE_APP, WEBVIEW'). It distinguishes the tool from most siblings by focusing on context switching rather than UI interaction or device control, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-current-context' or 'get-contexts'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-current-context' or 'get-contexts', or prerequisites such as needing initialized contexts. The description implies usage for switching but lacks explicit conditions or exclusions.

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