mobile_uninstall_appUninstall an app from an iOS or Android device using its bundle ID or package name and target 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. | |
| bundle_id | Yes | Bundle identifier (iOS) or package name (Android) of the app to be uninstalled |
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"v1.0.0Does 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 and the description need not restate it. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: no mention of lost app data, no confirmation that the action removes the app permanently, and no device-state requirements.
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 or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 low-complexity two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and a clear destructiveHint annotation, and no output schema, the essential information is present via structured fields. The description itself contributes little but is not missing anything critical for a correct call.
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%, with both 'device' and 'bundle_id' fully documented in the schema, including a pointer to mobile_list_available_devices and platform-specific identifier guidance. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Uninstall an app'), clearly distinguishing it from install/launch siblings by name. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related mobile_terminate_app, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a full uninstall.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that the app should be installed, or that terminate_app is a lighter alternative), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.