Terminate a mobile app on Android or iOS simulator. Specify platform and app ID to stop a running app.
Terminate a mobile app on Android or iOS simulator
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | Android package name or iOS bundle id | |
| deviceId | No | Device UDID (iOS) or Serial (Android). Defaults to booted/connected. | |
| platform | Yes |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral. It doesn't say whether this is a force-stop or backgrounding, whether app data/state is preserved, what happens if the app is not running, or whether it requires a booted device.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though terse to the point that space is under-used rather than well-used.
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 mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about return values, failure modes, or side effects on app state. That is insufficient for an agent to call it confidently in lifecycle workflows alongside restart_app and reset_app_data.
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 67%, with appId and deviceId well documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the platform choices ('Android or iOS'); the platform enum still lacks an in-schema description, but the value space is self-evident. A 3 is the correct baseline when the schema does most of the work.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Terminate a mobile app') and scopes it to Android/iOS simulators, so the agent can tell what it does. It does not differentiate from closely related siblings such as restart_app, start_app, or reset_app_data, which is the remaining gap.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose terminate_app over restart_app, start_app, or reset_app_data, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the usage scenario from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.