mobile_uninstall_appUninstall an app from mobile device
Uninstall an app from 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 uninstall |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.11Input schema / properties / bundle_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Bundle identifier (iOS) or package name (Android) of the app to be uninstalled",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / packageNameAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The package name of the app to uninstall",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "device",
- "bundle_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "device",
+ "packageName"
+]v1.0.6Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note that app data is removed, that the action is irreversible, or what happens on failure — so it contributes essentially no behavioral context.
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 no filler, appropriate in size for a two-parameter tool. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than verbose, but nothing is wasted.
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 destructive, irreversible tool the annotations carry the safety signal and the schema carries the parameters, with no output schema needed. The description is minimally adequate but omits any consequence of the action (data removal, irreversibility) that would make it complete.
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 parameters (device, packageName) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or example detail beyond that, which is the baseline case for high-coverage schemas.
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 (uninstall) and resource (app on a mobile device), which is enough for an agent to know the operation. It does not differentiate from near-siblings like mobile_terminate_app or mobile_install_app, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives; it does not mention that mobile_terminate_app is the non-destructive option or when uninstall is appropriate. The only routing help (mobile_list_available_devices) lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.