Skip to main content
Glama

Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

by com.robotactions.test
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ios_tap_by_label

PREFERRED way to tap on iOS: find a UI element by its accessibility label and tap it in one call via the automation session. No coordinate math, and it works on zero-area elements (e.g. bottom-tab labels) where ios_tap(x,y) would miss. Use this before falling back to ios_tap with raw coordinates. If the element is off-screen it auto-scrolls to bring it into view first (disable with autoScroll:false). On no match, returns similar labels (incl. off-screen) to retry with. Requires an active iOS automation session (auto-starts if needed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
udidYesiOS device UDID
labelYesAccessibility label or visible text of the element to tap
matchNoHow to match `label`. Default "contains" — strict, and the only modes that act without interpretation. "fuzzy" tolerates typos and word-order drift, and is tried ONLY after strict finds nothing; it REFUSES when two candidates are too close rather than guessing between them (e.g. "Sign" vs Sign In / Sign Out), and reports which attribute it matched.
autoScrollNoScroll the element into view if off-screen before tapping (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / match
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "How to match `label`. Default \"contains\" — strict, and the only modes that act without interpretation. \"fuzzy\" tolerates typos and word-order drift, and is tried ONLY after strict finds nothing; it REFUSES when two candidates are too close rather than guessing between them (e.g. \"Sign\" vs Sign In / Sign Out), and reports which attribute it matched.",
+  "enum": [
+    "exact",
+    "contains",
+    "fuzzy"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full behavioral disclosure. It details auto-scrolling behavior (with disable option), the no-match fallback of returning similar labels, the auto-start of the session, and nuanced matching semantics (fuzzy refuses ambiguous matches). It does not explicitly describe side effects of tapping or success return format, but the disclosed traits are substantial.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is five sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose ('PREFERRED way'), then quickly covers advantages, usage priority, auto-scroll behavior, no-match fallback, and session handling. Every sentence contributes unique information with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter nuances adequately. It names the fallback sibling and explains the session requirement. The only minor gap is not describing the success return value, but given no output schema exists, the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, especially for the 'match' parameter: it explains strict vs. fuzzy semantics, the refusal behavior on ambiguous fuzzy matches, and that it reports which attribute matched. It also clarifies autoScroll's behavior. This elevates it above the baseline 3.

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 opens with a clear statement of intent: 'find a UI element by its accessibility label and tap it in one call via the automation session.' It explicitly contrasts with ios_tap by noting it works on zero-area elements where coordinate-based taps would miss, distinguishing it from its primary sibling.

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 explicitly says 'PREFERRED way to tap on iOS' and instructs 'Use this before falling back to ios_tap with raw coordinates,' giving a clear precedence. It also explains why (no coordinate math, works on zero-area elements), making the usage context obvious.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources