Skip to main content
Glama

audit_screen

Read-only

Audit a mobile screen snapshot to score touch targets, contrast, and visual rhythm against platform standards for iOS or Android.

Instructions

Audit a rendered mobile screen (iOS or Android) from a view-hierarchy/accessibility snapshot. Call with no arguments for the expected snapshot shape and how to capture it. Pass platform:"android" to score against the 48dp Material touch minimum and Material muted roles (onSurfaceVariant/outline = warn not fail); default platform:"ios" scores 44pt and treats secondaryLabel/tertiaryLabel as platform-standard. Both score touch targets, contrast, and visual rhythm (alignment, gap consistency, optical balance). Same return shape as audit_page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profileNoTaste profile owning the binding. Omit to search all stored profiles for one bound to the project.
projectNoProject identifier — resolves a saved taste surface binding (see bind_taste_surface). When the binding carries design_notes and a screenshot is passed, the screenshot's pixels verify the color-scheme notes; results gain note_assessments.
elementsNoElements captured from the rendered screen via an accessibility/view-hierarchy snapshot
platformNoTarget platform — 'ios' (default, 44pt minimum, iOS semantic colors) or 'android' (48dp minimum, Material semantic roles)
viewportNoScreen size in pt (iOS) or dp (Android) at capture time, e.g. {w:393,h:852} iPhone 15, {w:412,h:915} Pixel
screenshotNoOptional base64 PNG of the screen, for the caller's reference. Geometry is scored from the snapshot, not decoded pixels.
scroll_settleNo
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds platform-specific scoring details (touch minima, semantic color treatment) and mentions that screenshot is for reference only. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph that is dense but not overly long. It front-loads the purpose and then adds details. Some sentences are long, but no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main behavior and platform differences. However, it omits mention of scroll_settle (boolean parameter) and does not explain profile/project parameters in the description (though schema covers them). Could be more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is high (86%), but the description adds value by explaining the behavior of platform (default ios, Android 48dp) and that screenshot is optional. It clarifies the expected use of certain parameters beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a clear verb ('Audit') and specifies the resource ('a rendered mobile screen (iOS or Android) from a view-hierarchy/accessibility snapshot'). It distinguishes from siblings by noting the return shape is the same as audit_page.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains that calling with no arguments yields the expected snapshot shape, and that platform parameter changes scoring rules. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rhinocap/raven-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server