mcp-android-emulator

get_element_bounds

Retrieve exact bounds and center coordinates of a UI element by specifying its text, resource ID, or index.

Instructions

Get the exact bounds and center coordinates of an element

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_element_bounds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	No	Text of the element
`index`	No	Index if multiple matches (0-based, default: 0)
`resourceId`	No	Resource ID of the element

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets bounds and center; it does not mention what happens if the element is not found, whether coordinates are in pixels or dp, whether the element must be visible, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap.

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 with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, and the description is very brief. It explains the core function but omits details such as the return format, failure behavior, and how the element is matched when multiple parameters are provided. For a simple getter, this is minimally adequate but leaves room for improved completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (text, index, resourceId) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('element') and the exact output ('bounds and center coordinates'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_ui_tree' (which returns the tree) or 'get_screen_size' (which returns screen dimensions).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage (when you need an element's bounds/center) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as element visibility. It is not misleading, but it lacks direct usage direction.

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