Manos MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Set network condition

set_network

Toggle Wi-Fi, cellular, or airplane mode on Android devices or emulators to simulate network conditions for mobile app UI testing.

Instructions

Toggle wifi/cellular/airplane mode. Android only (emulator/device); iOS simulators share the host network (use Network Link Conditioner).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>"
    },
    "name": "set_network"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wifi`	No
`cellular`	No
`device_id`	Yes	Device id from list_devices (adb serial like 'emulator-5554', or an iOS simulator UDID)
`airplane_mode`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries behavioral disclosure. It discloses the Android-only limitation and iOS host-network sharing. However, it does not explain interactions between parameters (e.g., whether airplane_mode overrides wifi) or side effects of toggling, leaving behavioral expectations incomplete.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The purpose is stated in the first six words, and platform notes are compact.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. Key gaps include whether multiple toggles can be set simultaneously, what effect airplane_mode has on wifi/cellular, and expected return values.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is only 25% (device_id described). The description names wifi, cellular, and airplane_mode as togglable, which adds basic meaning. But it does not clarify semantics like requiring at least one boolean, exclusivity, or precedence, so parameter understanding remains partially incomplete.

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 uses the specific verb 'Toggle' and names the exact resources (wifi, cellular, airplane mode). It also clarifies the platform scope (Android only), which distinguishes it from generic network tools among siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use (Android emulator/device) and provides an alternative for iOS simulators (Network Link Conditioner), clearly guiding selection.

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