mobile_get_orientationRead the current screen orientation of an iOS or Android device to detect portrait or landscape mode for layout, testing, or automation decisions.
Get the current screen orientation of the device
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | Yes | The device identifier to use. Use mobile_list_available_devices to find which devices are available to you. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / deviceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The device identifier to use. Use mobile_list_available_devices to find which devices are available to you.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / noParamsRemoved value: -{
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {},
- "type": "object"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "noParams"
-]New value: +[
+ "device"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as what orientation values are returned or whether it reflects device vs app orientation, so it contributes little beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is exactly as long as it needs to be for a simple read tool.
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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description omits any indication of the return form (e.g., portrait/landscape values). An agent knows what to call but not what to expect back, leaving a small but real gap.
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 description coverage is 100% and the device parameter is fully documented, including a pointer to mobile_list_available_devices. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters is appropriate.
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 a specific verb+resource ('Get the current screen orientation') clearly. It is distinguishable from the opposite-direction sibling mobile_set_orientation by the read verb, though it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as mobile_set_orientation or mobile_get_screen_size. The read verb only implies the use case, leaving the agent to infer everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.