mobile_list_appsRetrieve the full list of installed apps on a device to discover available applications.
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.
v1.0.0Input 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, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., performance, permission requirements, or output format). It simply states the purpose, which is already clear from the name and 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that fully captures the tool's function. There is no extraneous information, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 list operation with readOnlyHint, the description is sufficient. It does not specify the exact output format (e.g., package names vs. display names), but the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema make this a minor gap. The agent can infer that the result is a list of installed apps.
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 a schema description that explains how to find the device identifier (using mobile_list_available_devices). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states a specific action ('List') and resource ('all the installed apps on the device'). It is distinct from sibling tools that deal with devices or app lifecycle, and there is no ambiguity about what it does.
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 implies usage by stating what it lists, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like mobile_list_remote_devices or mobile_get_foreground_app. The parameter description references mobile_list_available_devices for finding devices, but that is not a usage guideline for the tool itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.