Verify Appium availability, install the required driver, and start a detached server for mobile test automation.
[approval required][workspace write][network][risk:network] Check Appium readiness, optionally install a driver and start a detached Appium server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | ||
| useNpx | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| serverUrl | No | ||
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| appiumHome | No | ||
| driverName | No | ||
| startServer | No | ||
| appiumCommand | No | ||
| installDriver | 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 supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool can write to the workspace, use the network, require approval, and that a server it starts is detached. It does not detail idempotency or handling of an already-running server, but the included risk tags and 'detached' are substantive.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The risk tags lead and the core action plus optional behaviors follow immediately.
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 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations; the description gives only an overview. An agent still lacks guidance about expected return value/readiness signal, meaningful defaults beyond detached server start, and which parameter combinations are common or required for a successful setup.
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 0% and the description names none of the 10 parameters. It only alludes to driver installation and server startup at a high level, leaving port, address, appiumHome, timeoutMs, useNpx, and others unexplained. Description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 names a specific action ('Check Appium readiness') with explicit optional behaviors ('install a driver', 'start a detached Appium server'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like appium.create_session or env.preflight, which cover different lifecycle stages.
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?
The wording implies this is a setup/preflight tool to run before Appium sessions, and the optional install/start flags hint at the intended use. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over env.preflight or appium.create_session, and no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.