Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mobile-simulator-emulator-mcp

mobile-simulator-emulator-mcp

by gitsoufiane
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Install Mobile App

mobile_install_app
DestructiveIdempotent

Install an APK or .app package onto a chosen Android emulator or iOS simulator device, using paths under the app root directory.

Instructions

Install an APK on an Android Emulator or an .app directory on an iOS Simulator. Paths are confined beneath MOBILE_MCP_APP_ROOT.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "device": "<device>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "mobile_install_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
deviceYesStable device ID returned by mobile_list_devices

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools