mobile_terminate_appTerminate a running app on a mobile device by specifying its package name to close it and free system resources.
Stop and terminate an app on mobile 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. | |
| packageName | Yes | The package name of the app to terminate |
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 / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "packageName"
-]New value: +[
+ "device",
+ "packageName"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds no further behavioral context—it does not state whether the termination is a force-stop, whether app data is preserved, or what side effects occur. Given destructiveHint=false, the description could clarify the impact but remains silent. It does not contradict 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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action. It is concise and avoids unnecessary detail, but the phrase 'Stop and terminate' is slightly redundant—'terminate' alone would suffice. Still, it is efficient and free of fluff.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and existing annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any mention of return values, success/failure indications, or side effects like app state loss. The lack of such context could leave an agent uncertain about outcomes, though the tool's simplicity reduces the gap. Overall, adequate but not rich.
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 both device and packageName are well documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not compensate with extra context about parameter usage 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 states a specific action ('Stop and terminate') on a specific resource ('an app on mobile device'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like launch, install, and uninstall, and the target is unambiguous via the packageName parameter. The redundancy of 'stop and terminate' is minor and does not obscure the purpose.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., app must be installed) or suggest situations where termination is appropriate. The device parameter schema hints at discovering devices, but that is not usage guidance for the tool itself. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.