mobile_set_orientationSet a mobile device's screen orientation to portrait or landscape. Specify the device ID and desired orientation to adjust display for UI tests and app automation.
Change the screen orientation of the 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. | |
| orientation | Yes | The desired orientation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already indicate (destructiveHint=true). It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or any device-specific behavior. Given that this is a mutating operation, more transparency would be valuable, but the annotation covers the basic destructive nature.
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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action and target resource, earning a high score for conciseness.
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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description and schema provide sufficient information. The only minor gap is the lack of usage guidance, but overall the definition is complete enough for its complexity.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully described, including the enum values for orientation. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 ('Change') and a clear resource ('screen orientation'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling mobile_get_orientation, which reads orientation rather than changing it.
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 implies a setter role opposite to mobile_get_orientation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects. Usage context is only inferred from the verb 'change' and the sibling tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.