mobile_open_urlOpen a URL in the device browser to automate web testing on Android or iOS, using device ID and URL as parameters.
Open a URL in browser on device
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to open | |
| device | Yes | The device identifier to use. Use mobile_list_available_devices to find which devices are available to you. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation destructiveHint: true already informs the agent that this operation is potentially destructive. The description adds the context that the URL opens 'in browser on device', but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as navigation side effects, default browser behavior, or whether the current app will be left.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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?
The tool is simple with only two parameters, both documented, and the action is clear. However, the description lacks information about expected outcomes or side effects beyond the destructive annotation, and there is no output schema. It is adequate but leaves room for more detail.
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 'url' adequately documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('a URL in browser on device'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that launch apps, take screenshots, or manage devices. It is unambiguous and actionable.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.