Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
phonedriver

phonedriver

by hridaya423
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

batch

Runs ordered device steps—tap, type, swipe, scroll, press, launch, or wait—stops at first failure and provides one diff back.

Instructions

Run steps in order, one diff back; stops at the first failure. A step is {"tool":"tap","target":"@e3"}: tap, type, swipe, scroll, press, launch or wait.

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": {
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses ordered execution, first-failure termination, and the allowed step tool set, but leaves side effects, permissions, return behavior, and what 'one diff back' means unexplained.

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 compact sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and a useful example appended. The only drag is the ambiguous 'one diff back' phrase, which costs clarity without adding value.

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?

For a batch orchestrator with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented nested steps array, the description is too thin. It explains the top-level contract but not enough about constructing non-tap steps or interpreting results for an agent to call it fully correctly.

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 is only a bare array at 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives an example step object and the allowed tool values, which is meaningful, but it does not explain target semantics or per-action fields such as text for type or duration for wait.

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?

States that it runs multiple steps in order and stops at the first failure, and enumerates the action tools that can be a step. This clearly distinguishes it from single-action siblings like tap or type, though the odd phrase 'one diff back' slightly muddies the scope.

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?

Implies use when multiple actions need to run as a sequence and notes the stop-on-failure behavior. It does not explicitly say when to prefer batch over calling tap/type individually, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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