Accept, dismiss, or read system alert text in mobile app tests to handle unexpected popups and continue automation.
Handle system alerts with action=accept|dismiss, or read alert text with action=get_text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action to perform on alert: accept, dismiss, or get_text | |
| sessionId | No | Session ID; defaults to the active session. | |
| buttonLabel | No | Optional label of the button to click for accept/dismiss. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.95.0Input schema / properties / sessionId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Session ID to target. If omitted, uses the active session."New value: +"Session ID; defaults to the active session."v1.92.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate only that the tool is not read-only; the description adds that get_text is a read operation while accept/dismiss mutate the alert. However, it does not disclose behavior such as what happens when no alert is present, whether accept/dismiss consume the alert, or edge cases involving buttonLabel.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the resource and the three action modes without wasting words, making it easy to scan and parse.
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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient; 'read alert text' reasonably implies the return value. Still, it does not specify return details or no-alert/error behavior, so it stops just short of fully complete.
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 already documents all parameters including the action enum and buttonLabel. The description mostly restates those values, adding only the semantic framing of get_text as reading alert text, which provides marginal extra value.
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 names the target resource (system alerts) and enumerates the exact operations: accept, dismiss, or get alert text. This makes it clearly distinguishable from generic text tools such as appium_get_text, despite 'handle' being a generic verb.
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 establishes a clear trigger condition: use this tool when a system alert must be accepted, dismissed, or its text read. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the alert-specific scope makes routing an agent straightforward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.