mcp-android-emulator

double_tap

Simulate a double tap at specified coordinates on an Android emulator. Provide x and y values to execute the gesture.

Instructions

Perform a double tap at the specified coordinates

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "double_tap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`x`	Yes	X coordinate
`y`	Yes	Y coordinate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose details such as coordinate system (absolute vs relative), the timing between taps, or the expected system response. The phrase 'double tap' implies a gesture but omits behavioral nuances that could affect interpretation.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. No waste, but it is slightly under-specified for a tool with behavioral nuances. Still, it earns credit for efficiency.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the basic function and the schema covers parameters. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, and it does not differentiate from numerous sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent trying to select the correct action.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes 'x' and 'y' as coordinates with 100% coverage. The description merely restates 'at the specified coordinates', adding no new meaning about units, origin, or how the parameters influence the gesture. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Perform a double tap') and specifies the target ('at the specified coordinates'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'tap' by using 'double tap', though it does not explicitly contrast with 'multi_tap'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tap' or 'long_press'. The description lacks any contextual guidance or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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