mobile_terminate_appTerminates a running app on a mobile device using its device identifier and package name, useful for freeing resources or resetting app state.
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.
v1.0.6Input 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: -[
- "packageName"
-]New value: +[
+ "device",
+ "packageName"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds no further context such as whether termination requires the app to be running, whether it is reversible, or what happens to unsaved state.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. 'Stop and terminate' is mildly redundant but not harmful.
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 two-parameter, non-destructive action tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It stops short of clarifying how termination differs from uninstalling, which is the main ambiguity given the sibling set.
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%, and the 'device' parameter even points the agent to mobile_list_available_devices. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Stop and terminate an app'), so the agent knows the action targets an app on a device. It does not differentiate from siblings like mobile_uninstall_app or mobile_launch_app, which would require knowing terminate vs. remove vs. start.
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 indication of when to use this rather than mobile_uninstall_app (removes the app) or mobile_launch_app (starts it). The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.