Long press at (x,y) on an iOS device screen. Triggers context menus, peek/pop, drag handles. Distinct from ios_swipe (has motion) and ios_drag_drop (hold + motion). Coordinates are screen points. Requires an active iOS automation session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | X coordinate (screen points) | |
| y | Yes | Y coordinate (screen points) | |
| udid | Yes | iOS device UDID | |
| duration | No | Hold duration in ms (default: 800) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation semantics (hold gesture), the default duration context (800ms via schema note), and the session requirement. However, it does not disclose what happens on failure (no active session), whether coordinates are relative to the screen vs window, or any side effects beyond triggering UI responses. For a gesture tool this is moderate coverage.
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?
Three concise sentences, no waste. Front-loaded with the core action, then differentiating traits, then prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place.
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 4-parameter gesture tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sibling differentiation, coordinate units, and session prerequisite. The only gap is failure behavior on inactive sessions, but given the low complexity this is reasonably complete.
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%, covering x, y, udid, and duration with clear descriptions. The description reinforces that coordinates are 'screen points' and mentions the default hold duration. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation weight and the description adds only marginal reinforcement.
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?
Clear specific verb+resource: 'Long press at (x,y) on an iOS device screen.' Explicitly distinguishes from ios_swipe (motion) and ios_drag_drop (hold + motion), which differentiates it from close siblings. States the coordinate system (screen points) and activation use-cases (context menus, peek/pop, drag handles).
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?
Explicitly names alternatives (ios_swipe, ios_drag_drop) with the distinguishing criterion (motion). Mentions the prerequisite of an active iOS automation session. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, but the sibling differentiation plus session requirement provide clear contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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).
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.
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.
