ping_deviceCheck whether an Android, iOS, or cloud device is reachable and confirm the adb or Portal transport it uses before running any automation actions.
Is the device reachable? For adb devices, reports the Portal transport (http or content_provider).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reports Portal transport for adb devices, but it does not state whether the ping is read-only, whether it has side effects, how failures are represented, or any timeout/auth behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded as a direct question, with no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 the description is incomplete for routing among many device-related siblings. It omits usage conditions and parameter semantics, leaving an agent with insufficient context to choose it confidently over alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single optional 'device' parameter, and the description never explains what the parameter means, how to supply it, or what happens when it is omitted. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear purpose: testing whether a device is reachable and reporting the Portal transport for adb devices. It identifies the resource and output dimension, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_device_status, list_devices, or connect_device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_device_status or doctor. The phrase 'For adb devices' hints at a context, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or routing criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.