Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mobile-debug-mcp

mobile-debug-mcp

by clivejefferies
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_network_activity

Returns structured network events from platform logs since the last action to provide backend evidence for app side-effect flows, including endpoint, method, status, error, and duration.

Instructions

Returns structured network events captured from platform logs since the last action.

Call this immediately after an action when you want backend evidence for a side-effect flow, only if the result is still ambiguous. Do not call more than once per action.

Events are filtered to significant (non-background) requests only. Each event includes endpoint, method, statusCode, networkError, status, and durationMs.

status values:

  • success: HTTP 2xx or request detected with no error signal

  • failure: HTTP 4xx

  • retryable: HTTP 5xx, network error (timeout, dns_error, tls_error, etc.)

Returns { requests: [], count: 0 } when no credible network signals are found.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deviceIdNoDevice Serial (Android) or UDID (iOS). Defaults to connected/booted device.
platformYesPlatform to read network logs from

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.34.0
    • addedInput schema / allOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "not": {
+      "required": [
+        "expectedState"
+      ]
+    }
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.31.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: filtering rules, the exact event field set, the status taxonomy with HTTP/error mapping, and the empty-result shape. Remaining gaps are timing semantics (does it wait for events or read a buffer immediately?) and the safety/read-only profile, which are not stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose and scope, followed by usage gates, filtering, and field/status semantics — no filler sentences. The status list is verbose but each entry carries real meaning for interpreting results, so only minor trimming is possible.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates with the return shape and per-event fields. What's missing is timing/blocking behavior relative to the action and any note on whether the capture window can expire, which matters for a 'since the last action' reader.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond implying 'platform logs' maps to the platform arg. Notably the schema's allOf restriction forbidding an 'expectedState' key is never mentioned in the description, leaving that constraint opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns structured network events captured from platform logs') plus an explicit temporal scope ('since the last action'). The 'significant (non-background) requests only' filter further separates it from generic log siblings like get_logs or the system-trace tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states exactly when to call ('immediately after an action when you want backend evidence for a side-effect flow'), an exclusion ('only if the result is still ambiguous'), and a rate constraint ('Do not call more than once per action'). It does not name a sibling alternative to use when the result is not ambiguous, which keeps it off a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools