Capture a screenshot and page source of the active Appium session, optionally waiting for the app UI to stabilize for accurate observation.
Capture screenshot and page source for the current Appium session, optionally waiting for app UI readiness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix | No | ||
| stableMs | No | ||
| minWaitMs | No | ||
| serverUrl | No | ||
| sessionId | Yes | ||
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| waitForAnyText | No | ||
| waitForPackageIdle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optionally waiting for app UI readiness' but does not explain what that entails, how long it might block, or any side effects. It also fails to mention that the tool may take significant time due to waiting, or what 'readiness' means in terms of parameters like stableMs or waitForAnyText.
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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so brief that it omits essential details about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
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 tool with 8 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the screenshot and page source return, how the waiting behavior is controlled, or any of the parameter semantics. An agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the given information.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention any of the 8 parameters (prefix, stableMs, minWaitMs, serverUrl, timeoutMs, waitForAnyText, waitForPackageIdle) at all. Agents have no way to know what these parameters control, making correct invocation impossible.
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 clearly states the tool captures a screenshot and page source for the current Appium session, and optionally waits for UI readiness. This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like appium.get_page_source or device.capture_screenshot, though the combination and the waiting aspect make it distinct.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over calling appium.get_page_source and device.capture_screenshot separately, or when the waiting feature is necessary. The description implies usage but gives no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.