mcp-android-emulator

get_focused_input_value

Retrieve the current text value from the focused input field on an Android emulator to verify or use user-entered content.

Instructions

Get the current text value of the focused input field

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_focused_input_value"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('get') but does not mention edge cases, such as behavior when no input field is focused, whether it returns an empty string, or if it throws an error. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated. This is basic functionality with limited behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundancy, filler, or extraneous detail. It is perfectly front-loaded and earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple, zero-parameter getter, the description is complete. It specifies what is being retrieved (text value) and from where (focused input field). Without an output schema or complex behavior, no additional details are necessary for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter-related information, which 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: 'Get the current text value of the focused input field'. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'current text value of the focused input field' are specific and unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_focused_element' which retrieves the element, not its value.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., an input must be focused), or comparison to siblings like 'get_ui_tree' or 'get_all_text'. Usage must be inferred from the tool's name and description alone.

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