Compare the current screen against recorded checkpoints and get the Appium actions needed to reach a target checkpoint.
Match the current screen against recorded checkpoints and return Appium actions needed to reach a target checkpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | ||
| testName | No | ||
| serverUrl | No | ||
| sessionId | No | ||
| sourcePath | No | ||
| minimumScore | No | ||
| targetCheckpointId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only planning behavior by saying it 'returns' actions but does not disclose whether any state is mutated, whether prior recorded checkpoints must exist, what happens on no match, or how matching works. Key behavioral gaps remain for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the main action and expected output. There is no filler or redundancy, and it is easy for an agent to scan.
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?
Given the high complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. An agent cannot determine what inputs are required, what the returned Appium actions look like, or how this tool relates to flow.replay_to_checkpoint. It serves as a high-level summary but not a usable invocation guide.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. 'target checkpoint' loosely maps to targetCheckpointId, but source, sourcePath, serverUrl, sessionId, testName, and minimumScore remain entirely undocumented. The description does not compensate for the absent schema documentation.
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 action: compare the current screen to recorded checkpoints and return Appium actions needed for a target checkpoint. It is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling flow.replay_to_checkpoint, so it falls short of a 5.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like flow.replay_to_checkpoint or flow.record_checkpoint. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or selection criteria. The intended usage is only implied by the wording, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.