Retrieve the current screen orientation or change it to LANDSCAPE or PORTRAIT using an active Appium session.
Get or set the device/screen orientation. Supports action=get and action=set (LANDSCAPE or PORTRAIT).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Use get to read current orientation, set to change orientation. | |
| sessionId | No | Session ID; defaults to the active session. | |
| orientation | No | Required when action is set. |
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false; the description adds that the tool can set orientation to LANDSCAPE or PORTRAIT. However, it does not mention side effects, persistence, or what the get action returns, leaving some behavioral detail undisclosed.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists supported actions and values. There is no filler or redundant content.
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?
The schema covers parameters and required fields, and the description conveys the get/set semantics. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explain what the get action returns, which is a small but relevant completeness gap.
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 and enums. The description mostly restates what the schema already provides (action=get/set, LANDSCAPE/PORTRAIT) without adding new semantic detail.
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-resource pair: 'Get or set the device/screen orientation.' It is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools, so it misses the top score.
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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need to read or change the device orientation. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related siblings like appium_get_window_size or appium_context, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.