replicant-mcp

ui-capture

Capture screenshots or visual snapshots of Android app UI during development and testing.

Instructions

Capture screenshots or visual snapshots.

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": {
      "operation": "<operation>"
    },
    "name": "ui-capture"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`operation`	Yes
`localPath`	No
`inline`	No
`maxDimension`	No	Max image dimension in pixels (default: 800). Higher = better quality, more tokens.
`raw`	No	Skip scaling, full device resolution.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.1Apr 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, suggesting side effects, but the description simply says 'capture', implying a read operation without disclosing any behavioral traits such as file creation, state changes, or output format. The description contradicts annotations, failing to clarify side effects.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it omits critical details. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices necessary information, resulting in under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no behavioral transparency, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the tool's purpose in context of its complexity and does not cover return values or usage nuances.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description adds no clarification for parameters like 'operation', 'localPath', or 'inline'. It does not explain the difference between the two operation enum values, leaving the agent without essential semantic context.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'capture' and resource 'screenshots or visual snapshots', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ui-action' and 'ui-query' which focus on interaction and querying. However, it lacks precision on what 'visual snapshots' entails beyond screenshots.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or contrasts with siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server