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. While 'Launch' implies a state-changing operation, the description doesn't mention what happens if the app is already running, whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or any side effects. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with just 5 words, front-loading the essential action and target. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand the core purpose immediately without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool that performs a state-changing operation (launching an app) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, what the tool returns, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. The context signals show this is a mutation tool without safety annotations, requiring more descriptive guidance.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added context about how parameters interact or typical usage patterns.

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 ('Launch') and target ('an app on a simulator'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'launch-app', which appears to be a more general version, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this Xcode-specific tool versus the generic one.

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 sibling tools like 'launch-app' and 'launch-appium-app' available, there's no indication of when this Xcode-specific simulator launching tool is preferred over those other options.

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