mobilerun-mcp

Wait For Text

wait_for_text

Suspends automation until a node with the given text exists, including off-screen nodes.

Instructions

Wait until a node containing text exists (off-screen nodes count).

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": "wait_for_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`poll`	No
`text`	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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real trait not in the schema (off-screen nodes count), but omits what happens on timeout (throw vs. return false), polling behavior, and whether a non-visible/off-screen match is treated as success for the caller.

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 parenthetical scoping note is the only elaboration and it earns its place.

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 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and overlapping siblings, the description is too thin for a timing/wait tool where timeout and failure semantics matter most.

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% and the description only implicitly references 'text'. It says nothing about poll, timeout, or device, leaving three of four parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 and resource: wait until a node containing text exists, and adds the scope qualifier that off-screen nodes count. However it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like wait_for_nodes or assert_text_visible, so the agent gets a clear purpose but no routing signal.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named despite several overlapping siblings (wait_for, wait_for_nodes, wait_for_idle, assert_text_visible). The agent must infer when this is preferable to a general wait or an assertion.

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

Deploy Server