mobilerun-mcp

Ui With Recovery

ui_with_recovery

Captures a device UI snapshot, retrying when the accessibility tree is dead or empty so automation can read the current screen.

Instructions

UI snapshot that retries past a dead or empty accessibility tree.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ui_with_recovery"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`device`	No
`filter`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 does disclose one genuine trait beyond structured data — automatic retry on a dead/empty tree — but says nothing about permission needs, timeouts, how many retries, or failure modes. That is a real contribution but far from complete coverage.

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 front-loaded clause with no filler; the recovery behavior is stated immediately. It is efficient, though almost to the point of under-specification rather than exemplary concision.

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 annotation coverage and 0% parameter description coverage the definition leaves meaningful gaps: what the two parameters do, and how the retry/recovery behaves on repeated failure. For a 2-param, no-annotation tool this is too thin.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both 'device' and 'filter'. It adds no meaning at all for either parameter — an agent cannot tell what 'device' accepts or what 'filter=true' actually filters.

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?

The description names a concrete verb and resource ('UI snapshot') and adds the distinctive behavioral trait 'retries past a dead or empty accessibility tree,' which differentiates it from the plain 'ui', 'ui_json', and 'get_ui_tree' siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred from the recovery clause.

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?

The phrase 'retries past a dead or empty accessibility tree' implies the use case (when a normal snapshot might fail) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling comparison against ui/ui_json. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server