mobile-simulator-emulator-mcp

by gitsoufiane

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation (device management, app lifecycle, permissions, location, push notifications) with no overlap. Descriptions clearly differentiate iOS and Android where needed.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'mobile_verb_noun' with snake_case. Verbs are action-oriented (list, boot, install, etc.) and noun complements are specific.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the set covers device and app lifecycle, permissions, location, and push notifications without being excessive or too sparse for the domain of mobile simulation/emulation.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers core workflows (list, boot, install, launch, terminate, reset, logs, permissions, location, push, erase). Minor gaps like device details or screenshots are not critical but would enhance completeness.
Average 3.9/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds context about platform-specific behaviors (iOS Simulator allowlisted services vs. Android runtime permissions) beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., device booted, app installed), or error conditions. Annotations already indicate mutation and destructiveness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but slightly dense due to combining two platforms. Could be split for readability, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description misses important context like behavior when the app isn't installed or the device isn't booted. With 4 required parameters and low schema coverage, more guidance is needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (25%), but the description explains the 'permission' parameter meaning (iOS vs. Android) and the 'action' parameter values (grant, revoke, reset). It adds significant value for these two parameters, though 'device' and 'appId' lack explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool grants, revokes, or resets mobile app permissions for both iOS Simulator and Android. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mobile_install_app or mobile_reset_app by focusing on permissions, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling permission tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mobile_reset_app for resetting app data). No preconditions or scenarios mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if app not found) or interaction details (e.g., foreground launch).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with annotations, the description is adequate. Could mention that the app must be installed or the return value, but lacks major omissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (device has description, appId does not). The description adds meaning for appId (bundle ID or package name) but not for device. With moderate coverage, description provides partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Launch'), the resource ('installed app'), and how to identify it ('by iOS bundle ID or Android package name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mobile_install_app (install vs launch) and mobile_terminate_app (terminate vs launch).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., app must be installed, device must be booted) or conditions to avoid (e.g., if app is already running).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds platform support details (iOS/Android, clearing on iOS) but lacks information on side effects, permissions, or state changes beyond the setting action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single concise sentence plus a brief note, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (content unknown), the description is minimal. It does not explain how to specify latitude/longitude, prerequisites, or output interpretation, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0 parameters, so description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as per guidelines for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets simulated latitude/longitude on iOS or Android, specifying the verb 'Set' and resource. It also notes a platform-specific capability (clearing on iOS), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mobile_set_permission.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions clearing support on iOS, but no context for choosing this tool over other mobile tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states that the tool waits until the device is ready, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false). It does not contradict annotations. However, it could elaborate on what 'ready' means (e.g., boot completion status).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, 14-word sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No superfluous words or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple boot operation but leaves open questions: What happens if boot fails? Does it throw an error? What does 'ready' mean? How long might it wait? The presence of annotations helps, but the description could be more thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only 'device' has a description). The description implicitly refers to the 'device' parameter ('Boot an iOS Simulator or configured Android virtual device'), but does not mention 'timeoutSeconds' or its semantics. With low coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool boots an iOS Simulator or Android virtual device and waits until it is ready. The verb 'Boot' is specific and the resource 'device' is unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like mobile_launch_app (boots device vs. launches app).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you need to boot a device, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device must be configured) or when not to use it. Context is implied but not fully elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds that the tool shuts down before erasing and clarifies Android compatibility, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences deliver the core message and a key limitation. No wasted words, though space is available for elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, destructive annotations, and presence of output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and limitations adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level detail, meeting the baseline without exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Shut down and erase all content and settings') and resource ('iOS Simulator'), and distinguishes from siblings like mobile_reset_app by covering full device wipe. The note about Android unsupport adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for full device wipe and alerts against Android use, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over similar tools like mobile_reset_app or mobile_shutdown_device. Guidelines are present but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructive and idempotent. The description adds the behavioral trait of path confinement beneath MOBILE_MCP_APP_ROOT. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not elaborate on what happens on install (e.g., overwrite behavior) or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers platform and path confinement. With no output schema, it would benefit from describing return values or success/failure indicators. However, the tool is simple and context from sibling tools fills some gaps (e.g., need to boot device first).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any parameters. Schema coverage is 50% (only device has a description). The path parameter lacks any description both in schema and in the tool description, leaving confusion about format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Install' and specifies the resources: APK on Android Emulator or .app directory on iOS Simulator. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mobile_launch_app or mobile_reset_app.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implicit usage context (install before launching) but lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like mobile_launch_app. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond path confinement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate mutating action (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false). Description adds that it sends a push payload but does not detail idempotency, side effects (e.g., replacing vs. adding to notification queue), or authentication/payload constraints. With low annotation detail, description carries burden but only partly addresses it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundant information. First sentence states action and target, second provides a useful cross-platform comparison. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has output schema (assumed present) and description covers purpose and platform. It references mobile_list_devices for device ID, aiding chaining. However, lacks details like APNs certificate requirement or payload format specifics. Minor gaps but sufficient for a focused tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (device parameter has a description). appId and payload have no description in schema, and the tool description does not elaborate on them beyond naming. Payload is described as 'APNs JSON' but no structure details. The description adds minimal value over schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sends an APNs JSON payload to an installed iOS Simulator app. It also mentions the Android FCM has no equivalent, distinguishing it from any cross-platform tool. The verb 'send' and resource 'payload to app' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states that Android FCM has no equivalent adb command, implying this tool is iOS-only. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, but the sibling list includes no other push tools, so the context is clear. Lacks explicit preconditions like app must be installed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: platform-specific filtering (UID vs executable) and bounded recency, which complements the annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: first states the overall purpose, second adds crucial platform-specific detail. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple structure (4 params, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose and platform nuance. It could note potential log length truncation or permissions, but overall it's sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (25%: only device has a description). The description compensates partially by explaining that logs are 'bounded recent' (relates to maxLines and sinceMinutes) and that appId identifies the app. However, it does not detail parameter ranges, defaults, or how the platform filtering maps to parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns bounded recent logs for one installed app, with specific verb 'return' and resource 'logs'. It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on logs for a single app, which is different from listing devices or managing app lifecycle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing recent logs for a specific app, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The sibling list suggests alternatives like mobile_list_devices for device info, but guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true; description adds platform-specific details (clear data vs uninstall), providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive reset tool with output schema present, description adequately covers platform behavior and follow-up, meeting completeness needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only device described); description adds no parameter-specific details beyond schema, failing to compensate for the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states platform-specific actions (clear Android data, uninstall iOS) and references reinstallation for iOS, distinguishing it from mobile_install_app.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states use case (reset app state) and mentions post-action for iOS (reinstall with mobile_install_app). Could be improved by excluding when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that physical devices are excluded, which is important behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence of 14 words that is perfectly concise with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully captures what the tool does and its scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4; no additional parameter info needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies exactly what the tool lists (iOS simulators, running Android emulators, configured Android virtual devices) and explicitly excludes physical devices. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like mobile_boot_device or mobile_install_app.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, but given its listing nature and sibling context, the use case is implied: to discover available devices before performing other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it shuts down without deleting data, which is consistent and provides additional context. No contradictions or missing behavioral details for this simple tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete information about what the tool does and its non-destructive nature. The annotations further support this, making the definition adequate for selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single required parameter 'device', which is already described as 'Stable device ID returned by mobile_list_devices'. The description does not add new meaning beyond that, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Shut down' and the specific targets 'iOS Simulator or Android Emulator'. It also includes the crucial constraint 'without deleting its data'. This distinguishes it from siblings like mobile_boot_device and mobile_erase_device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to stop a simulator/emulator while preserving data. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context from sibling names like mobile_boot_device provides clear differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it does not clear app data, providing useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no extraneous information. Front-loaded with the action and key constraint. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter context. No missing information is evident.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (device described, appId not). The description adds meaning by specifying that appId can be an iOS bundle ID or Android package name, which helps the agent understand the parameter's usage beyond type constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (terminate an app) and the method (by iOS bundle ID or Android package name). It also specifies a key behavioral detail (without clearing app data), which distinguishes it from siblings like mobile_reset_app.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for termination without data clearance but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion or alternative references provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mobile-simulator-emulator-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![mobile-simulator-emulator-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gitsoufiane/mobile-simulator-emulator-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gitsoufiane/mobile-simulator-emulator-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mobile-simulator-emulator-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gitsoufiane/mobile-simulator-emulator-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gitsoufiane/mobile-simulator-emulator-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gitsoufiane/mobile-simulator-emulator-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server