Navigates to the iOS home screen by swiping up from the bottom edge, letting agents or tests exit the current app.
Leave the app: swipe up from the bottom edge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| settle | No | wait for the screen to change and settle before returning | |
| timeout | No | ||
| stable_for | No | ||
| wait_change | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only the physical gesture. It says nothing about platform constraints, whether this backgrounds the app or kills it, what happens if the gesture is unsupported, or the meaning of the four synchronization parameters that govern when the tool returns.
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 short sentence with the effect front-loaded before the mechanism. It wastes no words, though the colon-and-imperative phrasing reads as end-user instruction rather than tool documentation.
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?
With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin: it omits the return/settle behavior implied by the parameters and says nothing about platform applicability or post-gesture state, leaving the agent unable to call it reliably.
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?
Schema coverage is only 25% — `settle`, `timeout`, `stable_for`, and `wait_change` are all undocumented except a one-liner on `settle`. The description adds no semantics for any of these wait/settle controls, so an agent cannot tell how to tune them or what default behavior to expect.
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 states the effect ("Leave the app") and the gesture that produces it ("swipe up from the bottom edge"), which resolves the ambiguity of the name "home_screen" for an agent that might otherwise expect a screen-read operation. However, it is phrased as an imperative instruction to a human rather than as a tool capability, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like `swipe` or `back` that could achieve a similar outcome.
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 statement of when to call this versus `back`, `swipe`, or `tap`, and no conditions under which it should not be used (e.g. app without a home gesture, Android vs iOS). The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line effect description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.