Type text on the Android device keyboard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to type | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. | |
| channel_account_id | No | Android device channel_account ID. Omit when the workspace has a single Android device; REQUIRED when it has more than one (e.g. WhatsApp + LINE), else the call is rejected as ambiguous. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / channel_account_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Android device channel_account ID. Omit when the workspace has a single Android device; REQUIRED when it has more than one (e.g. WhatsApp + LINE), else the call is rejected as ambiguous.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the name: it does not say whether existing text is replaced, whether a field must be focused first, or what happens on failure, which matters for a destructive typing action.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and zero waste. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally sound.
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 input tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the minimal description is close to adequate. It is missing the key operational context that a text field must be focused and that typing may overwrite existing content, which the destructiveHint implies but the text never confirms.
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%, and the descriptions are rich (channel_account_id documents the ambiguity rejection, in_workspace documents scoping). The description contributes nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is correct.
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?
States a specific verb (type) and resource (text on the Android device keyboard), which is clearly distinct from android_tap, android_swipe, and android_shell. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related android_key or browser_type siblings.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. An agent gets no signal about prerequisites (e.g. a focused text field) or how this differs from android_key when it needs to enter text.
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.