mobile_list_appsList all installed apps on a specified Android or iOS device to inventory available applications. Provide the device identifier from available devices.
List all the installed apps on 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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note about return format, filtering, or whether system/user apps are included, which would have been the value-add for a listing 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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits the scoping detail (user vs system apps) that would make it more actionable.
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 trivial read-only listing tool with no output schema and a fully documented single parameter, this is minimally adequate. It omits what the listing contains (package names, labels) and there are no annotations-independent behavioral notes, 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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents 'device' including how to discover valid identifiers. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (installed apps), scoped to 'on the device'. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list/get tools like mobile_get_foreground_app or mobile_list_remote_devices by the word 'installed', though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only routing hint ('Use mobile_list_available_devices to find which devices are available') lives in the schema's parameter description, not the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.