Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
leeguooooo

iphone-use

by leeguooooo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

phone_flow_report

Destructive

Report a failed installed flow to the official flow registry. Attaches the failed step, redacted daemon result, and daemon version from the last run, so you only add a short note.

Instructions

File an issue on the official flow registry for an installed flow that failed (label changed, app updated, wrong locale). Uses the failure captured by the last phone_flow_run of that id — failed step, redacted daemon result, daemon version — so you only add a short note. Screen labels, typed text, and element lists are stripped. OUTWARD-FACING: requires confirm=true after the user agreed. Do not file for a phone that was simply locked/offline, or for a flow you ran on the wrong app/locale.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesRegistry id of the flow that failed.
noteNoOne or two sentences: what you expected, what the phone showed.
confirmNoMust be true; set only after the user agreed to open a public issue.
instanceNoInstalled local instance name, such as i13 or default. Omit to use the configured daemon. No fallback on failure.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.27.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / instance
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Installed local instance name, such as i13 or default. Omit to use the configured daemon. No fallback on failure.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.21.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds material context the annotations cannot: the target is a public, outward-facing registry, an explicit user-consent gate is required, and the submitted payload has screen labels, typed text, and element lists stripped. Not stated is duplicate-issue handling or whether the call is rate-limited, so this falls just short of fully complete.

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?

Purpose comes first, then the implicit data source, then the privacy guarantee, then the consent gate, then the exclusions — a deliberate ordering with no filler. Every clause (including the failure-type parenthetical) carries decision-relevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter, single-object tool with no output schema and annotations already covering the risk profile, the description supplies the remaining decision inputs: precondition of a prior run, consent requirement, redaction scope, and negative cases. An agent can determine whether to call it and how to prepare the note without further information.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining that the id scopes the report to the last phone_flow_run of that flow (so the failure data is implicit) and that this means the caller 'only add[s] a short note'. The confirm semantics are reinforced as a consent gate rather than a technical flag.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource — 'File an issue on the official flow registry' — for 'an installed flow that failed', and the parenthetical enumerates the failure classes (label changed, app updated, wrong locale). This is clearly distinct from siblings like phone_flow_publish, phone_flow_draft, and phone_flow_run without needing their schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives the positive precondition (a failure captured by the last phone_flow_run of that id), the gating requirement (confirm=true only after the user agreed), and explicit exclusions (do not file for a locked/offline phone, or for a flow run on the wrong app/locale). Both when-to and when-not are stated, plus the alternative interpretation of the failure.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools