MCP Appium Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Tap on' implies a UI interaction, the description doesn't specify what happens if multiple elements contain the text, whether it waits for the element to appear, what error conditions exist, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'tap' means in this context (single click, touch event), what happens on success/failure, whether it returns anything, or how it relates to the many sibling tools. The context signals show a simple parameter structure, but the behavioral aspects are completely undocumented.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'text' clearly documented as 'Text contained in the element to tap'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('an element containing specific text'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'tap-element', 'inspect-and-tap', or 'smart-tap', which likely have overlapping functionality but different 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. With numerous sibling tools for tapping and interacting with elements (e.g., 'tap-element', 'inspect-and-tap', 'smart-tap', 'tap-by-ios-class-chain'), there's no indication of when text-based tapping is preferred over other methods or what prerequisites might be needed.

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