mcp-android-emulator

get_clickable_elements

List all clickable UI elements on an Android screen, with text, resource-id, and coordinates, to enable reliable tapping when text-based selection fails.

Instructions

Get all clickable elements on screen with their text, resource-id, and coordinates (useful when tap_text fails)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_clickable_elements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`includeDisabled`	No	Include disabled elements (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return contents (text, resource-id, coordinates) and implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., accessibility service), or edge cases (e.g., off-screen elements). This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and key output fields, and adds a practical use case. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it defines the output content and a usage scenario. It lacks details on return structure (e.g., list vs. array) but the listed fields (text, resource-id, coordinates) give sufficient context for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 input schema has one parameter (includeDisabled) with a description, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: getting all clickable elements on screen with their text, resource-id, and coordinates. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('clickable elements'), and the output details distinguish it from general UI tree tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a clear use case: when tap_text fails. This gives context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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