Retrieve the phone's current GPS or network coordinates and accuracy in meters, with optional provider selection for faster or passive positioning.
Current phone location (GPS/network): latitude, longitude, accuracy in meters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No | default network (faster) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape and units (accuracy in meters) plus that location can come from GPS or network. It says nothing about permission requirements, whether the call blocks until a fix is available, what happens on timeout or when no signal exists, or whether the reading is cached/stale.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the returned values, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 zero-required-parameter, read-only sensor tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and in what units, which is the core need. It falls short on operational context an agent needs in practice: permissions, latency/blocking behavior, and failure modes when no fix is available.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning by explaining that location can come from GPS or network, which contextualizes the provider parameter and its tradeoffs. However, it omits the 'passive' provider option that the enum exposes, leaving that choice unexplained.
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 resource (current phone location) and the fields returned (latitude, longitude, accuracy in meters), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not reference any sibling, but none of the listed siblings (shell, phone_status, clipboard, etc.) overlaps with location, so differentiation is not needed.
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?
Usage is implied only: the word 'current' suggests a one-shot read of the present fix, and the parenthetical GPS/network hints at source selection. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on choosing among provider values, and no mention of when not to call it (e.g. permission not granted).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.