mobilerun-mcp

Wait For App

wait_for_app

Pause execution until the specified app is in the foreground, so the next action targets the intended UI.

Instructions

Wait until app_id is in the foreground.

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": {
      "app_id": "<app_id>"
    },
    "name": "wait_for_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`poll`	No
`app_id`	Yes
`device`	No
`timeout`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides only the wait condition. It omits what happens on timeout (raise, return false, hang?), whether the call blocks, and how 'foreground' is determined — all critical for a blocking wait 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though it borders on under-specification rather than optimal 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-value explanation is not required, but for a 4-parameter blocking wait with no annotations the description should cover timeout behavior and polling. As written it is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 implies app_id is the target but gives no format or matching semantics, and says nothing about poll (default 0.5) or timeout (default 10), leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb ('Wait') and resource ('app_id ... in the foreground'), which distinguishes it from siblings like wait_for_text, wait_for_idle, and current_app_id. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the other wait_* tools.

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 versus wait_for, wait_for_idle, wait_for_screen_change, or current_app_id, and no mention of prerequisites or the timeout failure mode. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server