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

mobile-simulator-emulator-mcp

by gitsoufiane
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Launch Mobile App

mobile_launch_app
Idempotent

Launch an installed app on a mobile simulator or emulator using its iOS bundle ID or Android package name.

Instructions

Launch an installed app by iOS bundle ID or Android package name.

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>",
      "appId": "<appId>"
    },
    "name": "mobile_launch_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appIdYes
deviceYesStable device ID returned by mobile_list_devices

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools