mobilerun-mcp

Assert Text Visible

assert_text_visible

Verify target text appears on a device screen within a timeout; fails the check if the text is not visible.

Instructions

Fail unless text becomes visible on screen within timeout seconds.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "assert_text_visible"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`device`	No
`timeout`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the core behavior: the tool fails rather than merely returning, and it blocks for up to timeout seconds. It does not say how failure surfaces (exception vs. error result), whether it polls or waits once, or what happens on timeout expiry beyond 'fail'.

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 with zero filler; the assertion condition and the timing constraint both land immediately.

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 output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, but for a 3-parameter assertion tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, leaving the device parameter and text-matching semantics unexplained is a real gap. It is minimally adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it names 'text' and the timeout semantics ('within timeout seconds') but gives no matching rules for text (exact, substring, regex, case sensitivity) and never mentions the 'device' parameter or the 5-second default.

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 a specific verb (assert/fail) against a specific resource (text visible on screen) with the timeout condition, so the agent knows this is a blocking assertion, not a passive wait. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with close siblings like wait_for_text, assert_on, or verify_action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this assertion versus wait_for_text, assert_on, or verify_action, nor any prerequisite (e.g., app must be foregrounded, screen state must be settled). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server