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 ('Tap') but doesn't explain what happens after tapping (e.g., navigation, state change, error if element not found), whether this requires specific permissions or conditions, or any side effects. For a UI interaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 UI interaction tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides minimal but adequate context about what the tool does. However, it lacks important behavioral details (error handling, side effects, prerequisites) that would be needed for reliable agent usage. The description meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 both parameters ('selector' and 'strategy') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('Tap on') and target ('a UI element identified by a selector'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'tap-element-by-text', 'inspect-and-tap', or 'smart-tap', which appear to serve similar tapping functions with different targeting approaches.

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 like 'tap-element-by-text' or 'smart-tap'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active Appium session or visible element), performance considerations, or error conditions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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