Get the live session's view-only share link and driver state, including a note showing whether the user took control of the Android device.
The share link for the live session (view-only; minted at start, dies when the session ends), plus driver state — including driver_note, which tells you if the user took the wheel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real context: the link is view-only, minted at session start, and invalidated when the session ends, and driver_note signals whether the user took control. It omits permissions/auth needs, rate limits, and whether calling it has side effects.
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?
A single sentence with the primary return value front-loaded and parenthetical qualifiers doing useful work. It is dense but every clause (view-only, minted at start, dies at end, driver_note meaning) adds information.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return payload; it names the share link and driver state but not the shape or other fields beyond driver_note. Combined with the unexplained 'device' parameter, an agent has enough to call it but not a full picture.
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?
The single parameter 'device' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning (device id? name? optional targeting?) is entirely undocumented. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names the resource returned — the live session's share link plus driver state — which is specific and clearly distinct from siblings like previewapk_get_logs, previewapk_status, or previewapk_screenshot. The retrieval verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, but an agent can still tell what this tool yields.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternative named. The description notes the link is view-only and session-scoped, which hints at lifecycle, but it never says when to call this versus previewapk_status, which also exposes driver/session state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.