Checks the local mobile debugging environment for Android and iOS by verifying adb, connected devices, logs, environment variables, and iOS readiness to diagnose setup issues.
Quick healthcheck of local mobile debugging environment (adb, devices, logs, env, iOS).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.34.0Input schema / allOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "not": {
+ "required": [
+ "expectedState"
+ ]
+ }
+ }
+]v0.31.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'healthcheck' does imply a non-destructive read covering adb, devices, logs, env and iOS, which is real disclosure of scope. It stops short of saying what the result looks like (per-area pass/fail), how partial failures surface, or whether it can be slow when no device is attached.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core verb and subject, with the coverage list appended compactly. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.
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-parameter, no-annotation tool without an output schema, the description should at minimum sketch what the healthcheck reports back. It lists the domains checked but not the shape or semantics of a healthy vs unhealthy result, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to act on the output.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The odd 'not required expectedState' constraint in the schema is irrelevant to invocation since no properties exist.
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?
States a specific verb ('healthcheck') and resource ('local mobile debugging environment'), then enumerates the sub-areas checked (adb, devices, logs, env, iOS). This lets an agent tell it apart from narrower siblings like get_system_trace_status or list_devices, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings.
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?
'Quick healthcheck' implies a diagnostic performed before or when debugging fails, which is usable implied guidance. However, the description names no alternatives and no when-not conditions, so an agent must infer whether to call this or the sibling get_system_trace_status / get_debugger_capabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.