MCP Appium Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool waits for visibility but doesn't mention whether it polls continuously, returns an error on timeout, affects app state, or requires specific permissions. For a tool with potential timing and interaction implications, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential action.

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 tool's complexity in UI automation (involving timing, selectors, and visibility checks), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or interaction with other tools like 'element-exists', leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (selector, strategy, timeoutMs) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 verb ('wait for') and resource ('an element'), specifying the condition ('to be visible on screen'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'element-exists' by focusing on waiting for visibility rather than checking existence, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This provides a specific purpose but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'element-exists' or 'inspect-element', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an active Appium session or element initialization. It implies usage in UI testing contexts but provides no explicit context or exclusions.

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