mobile_list_crashesList crash reports available on a specified mobile device. Provide a device identifier to retrieve crash logs for analysis.
List crash reports available 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.
v0.0.53Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description does not contradict these and adds minimal behavioral context beyond the listing action. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description offers no extra behavioral detail such as what the returned list contains.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No filler or redundant detail.
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 list tool with one fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. However, it omits any detail about the output format or how crash reports are identified, which could be useful but is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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 100% and the single parameter 'device' is fully documented in the schema. The description references 'on the device' which aligns with the parameter but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'crash reports', and scopes it to the device. It distinguishes from siblings like mobile_get_crash (which implies fetching a single crash) by using 'List' and 'available on the device'.
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 this tool is for listing crash reports, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like mobile_get_crash. No exclusions or routing guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.