Launch a browser on a remote mobile device by providing its serial number to enable web debugging or CDP-based inspection.
Start the browser / CDP endpoint.
Args: serialno: The browser device serialno, from list_devices.
Returns: JSON response from the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serialno | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Start the browser / CDP endpoint' and mentions a JSON response. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or any setup requirements, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral understanding.
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 concise and well-structured, with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.
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 tool has a single parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It provides the key prerequisite (serialno from list_devices) and a basic return type. However, it lacks context on potential prerequisites like device connection state or the meaning of CDP endpoint, making it adequate but not complete.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that serialno is 'The browser device serialno, from list_devices', which adds meaning beyond the bare schema by specifying its origin and purpose. This is sufficient for a single parameter.
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 action 'Start the browser / CDP endpoint' which clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling browser tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the serialno comes from list_devices, which is a useful prerequisite, but does not say when to use it or what to do after launching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.