Bring the app on the cloud Android device back to the foreground after it exits to the launcher, crashes, or closes. Takes about 2 seconds.
Bring the session's app back to the foreground — after Back exits to the launcher, or the app crashed or was closed. Takes about 2 seconds; no reboot.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses useful traits beyond the schema: the ~2 second latency and that no reboot is required, which tells the agent the session survives. It omits what happens if no session/app exists and whether state is preserved, leaving real gaps for a state-changing tool.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the conditions and cost. Zero filler, every clause earns its place.
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?
For a single-param, no-output-schema tool the description covers purpose, triggers, and timing adequately. It leaves the device parameter unexplained and gives no error behavior (e.g., no active session), which are the remaining gaps.
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?
There is one parameter (device) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not — the device argument is never mentioned. With low coverage and no explanatory text, the agent gets no syntax or scoping guidance for the parameter.
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 a specific action (bring the session's app back to the foreground) and its outcome, with concrete triggering scenarios. It distinguishes the operation from cold-start siblings by framing it as a return to foreground, but never names an alternative like start or use_device explicitly.
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?
It gives clear when-to-use context: after Back exits to the launcher, or the app crashed or was closed. This is more than implied usage. It offers no exclusions or explicit routing against siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed