mobile_set_orientationChange a mobile device's screen orientation to portrait or landscape for a specified device. Use for iOS or Android automation that needs a fixed display orientation.
Change the 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. | |
| orientation | Yes | The desired orientation |
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 / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "orientation"
-]New value: +[
+ "device",
+ "orientation"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (a mutation) and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations — it does not say whether the change persists, what happens if the device is locked, or how failures surface.
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 zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though it is so terse it leaves the usage and behavioral gaps noted above.
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?
The tool is simple (2 required params, no nested objects, no output schema) and the schema carries most of the load, so the description is close to sufficient. It still omits any behavior on invocation and any reference to the paired get-orientation sibling.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the device pointer to mobile_list_available_devices and the orientation enum. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.
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+resource ('change the screen orientation') and the 'change' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling mobile_get_orientation. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or the scope (persistent vs temporary), so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling mobile_get_orientation or any alternative. Usage is only implied by the tool name; an agent gets no exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.