mobilerun-mcp

Open Deep Link

open_deep_link

Launch apps or screens by dispatching a deep link or intent, optionally targeting a specific package on a device.

Instructions

Dispatch a deep link / intent (default action VIEW), optionally pinned to a package.

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": {
      "deep_link": "<deep_link>"
    },
    "name": "open_deep_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	No
`device`	No
`deep_link`	Yes
`package_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never says whether this launches an app, what happens if package_name is absent or wrong, whether the action is safe/reversible, or what permission or device state is required — major gaps for a dispatch/mutation tool.

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?

A single economical sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, with no filler. Slight parenthetical for the default is efficient, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions the definition leaves the agent without enough to call this correctly against three close siblings or to predict failure behavior.

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 0% across 4 parameters. The description adds meaning for only two of them (action defaults to VIEW; package_name pins the target) and says nothing about the required deep_link's format or what 'device' selects. It only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb+resource ('Dispatch a deep link / intent'), which is more specific than a tautology. However, sibling tools resolve_deeplink and open_deeplink exist, and the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from them, leaving the agent to guess which of the near-identical siblings to call.

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 vs. resolve_deeplink/open_deeplink/system_intent, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint ('default action VIEW') describes a parameter default, not a selection condition.

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

Deploy Server