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. 'Install an app' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if installation fails, whether it overwrites existing apps, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after installation (success/failure indicators), doesn't clarify the relationship with the sibling 'install-app' tool, and provides no behavioral context beyond the basic action. Given the complexity of app installation and the lack of structured data, more completeness is needed.

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 ('udid' and 'appPath') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints, or usage context), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Install') and target ('app on a simulator'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling 'install-app' tool, which appears to serve a similar purpose but potentially for different contexts (e.g., physical devices vs simulators).

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 a sibling tool named 'install-app' that likely serves a similar function, there's no indication of whether this tool is specifically for Xcode simulators versus other installation methods, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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