Skip to main content
Glama

Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

by com.robotactions.test

device_tap

Tap at (x,y) coordinates on a device screen. Coordinates are in DEVICE TAP-COORD SPACE (the "Tap-coord space" dims printed in the device_screenshot footer; same space as device_page_source bounds). First call starts a device control session (~3s).

COORDINATE SOURCES — in priority order:

  1. PRIMARY: device_page_source bounds [L,T][R,B] (or the "Labeled elements" block bundled with device_screenshot) → tap center = ((L+R)/2, (T+B)/2). NO scaling. Pixel-exact.

  2. FALLBACK ONLY (element not in page_source — image-only widget / custom Canvas): visual estimate from the screenshot pixels, scaled with the formula below.

VISUAL → TAP COORDINATE FORMULA (Android): scale = device_width / rendered_chat_width tap_x = visual_x × scale tap_y = visual_y × scale where device_width is the "Tap-coord space" width from the device_screenshot footer and rendered_chat_width is the "Image" width from the same footer. Both axes share one scale (aspect preserved). The footer prints concrete values per device — never assume any constant.

Skipping the scale on a visual estimate is the #1 cause of taps landing in the wrong place — the agent sees a downscaled image but device_tap expects full-resolution tap-space coords.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYesX coordinate in device tap-coord space (NOT visual screenshot pixels — apply scale = device_width / rendered_chat_width if you started from a visual estimate)
yYesY coordinate in device tap-coord space (NOT visual screenshot pixels — apply scale = device_width / rendered_chat_width if you started from a visual estimate)
udidYesDevice serial number (UDID)

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a non-obvious 3-second session-start cost on first call, the coordinate space transformation semantics (tap-coord vs visual pixels), and explicitly warns about the #1 failure mode of skipping scale. This is exceptionally transparent behavioral context.

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 dense with high-value content and front-loaded the core purpose immediately. It's longer than ideal but every section earns its place: coordinate sources, priority order, fallback formula, and a concrete warning. Well organized with headers. Slightly verbose for the format but justified given the complexity of coordinate-space mapping.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 3-param tool with no output schema, this description is thoroughly complete. It covers the coordinate space ambiguity, the scaling formula, the session-start cost, the primary/fallback sourcing strategy, and the most common failure mode. The agent has everything needed to invoke correctly without guessing. This exceeds completeness expectations for a simple tap tool.

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 100% with parameter descriptions, and the schema fields (udid, x, y) are self-explanatory. The description adds substantial value by explaining the coordinate computation formula (scale = device_width / rendered_chat_width) and warning not to assume constants. The description supplements rather than repeats the schema — a slight deduction since parameters themselves are covered well by 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 clearly states 'Tap at (x,y) coordinates on a device screen' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like device_tap_by_text, ios_tap, and device_long_press by defining the coordinate space explicitly. It also identifies its coordinate source relationship to device_page_source and device_screenshot.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance with a priority order: use page_source bounds as PRIMARY source, and visual estimate only as FALLBACK for widgets not in page_source. It names the specific sibling tools to reference (device_page_source, device_screenshot) and explains which to use when, including the coordinate-space relationship.

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

All Robot Actions — Remote Device Control toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains near-identical duplicate families: web_* and playwright_* expose ~15 pairs of the same desktop-grid-browser operations (web_get_text/playwright_get_text, web_reload/playwright_reload), and screenshot/log/network/mock capabilities each have 5-8 entry points (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot vs ios_screenshot vs ios_fast_screenshot vs web_screenshot vs webpage_screenshot vs session_screenshot). Many individual descriptions carefully draw boundaries (devtools vs traffic, HID vs session), but an agent cannot reliably distinguish web_* from playwright_*, and ios_screenshot/ios_fast_screenshot/ios_mjpeg_screenshot blur together.

Naming Consistency2/5

The prefix scheme is broken: Android functionality is split arbitrarily between android_* and device_* (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot), the desktop browser gets two parallel prefixes (web_* and playwright_*), and verbs vary across equivalents (device_navigate_url vs web_navigate vs ios_safari_navigate). session_* uses bare verbs (session_url, session_back), and the same concept gets different names (ios_clipboard_get_hid vs ios_get_pasteboard; device_screen vs ios_orientation).

Tool Count1/5

333 tools is an extreme count by any measure — far beyond the 50+ threshold — and much of the bulk is duplicative (the web_*/playwright_* pairs alone double ~15 slots) or out-of-scope for a device-control server (TestRail, Jira, AzDO, agent memory, secret variables, feedback). Even granting that remote device control + test automation is a broad domain, this surface will devastate agent context budgets and is impossible to navigate coherently.

Completeness4/5

The core device-control and test-automation domain is remarkably thorough: Android and iOS each have full interaction, app-lifecycle, file, network/proxy, performance, crash, accessibility, recording, and replay coverage, with CRUD lifecycles for flows, suites, app uploads, TestRail cases, and visual-review baselines. Minor gaps exist at the margins — Jira/AzDO lack update/transition/comment operations, and iOS cannot open/close tabs — but the central workflows have no dead ends.

Resources