mcp-android-emulator

swipe

Simulate a swipe gesture on an Android screen by specifying start and end coordinates, with optional duration for controlling swipe speed.

Instructions

Perform a swipe gesture on the screen

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": {
      "x1": "<x1>",
      "y1": "<y1>",
      "x2": "<x2>",
      "y2": "<y2>"
    },
    "name": "swipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x1`	Yes	Starting X coordinate
`x2`	Yes	Ending X coordinate
`y1`	Yes	Starting Y coordinate
`y2`	Yes	Ending Y coordinate
`duration`	No	Duration in milliseconds (default: 300)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself, but it only repeats the tool's name. It fails to mention the optional duration parameter, whether coordinates are absolute or relative, or how the gesture interacts with the UI.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, making it concise. However, its brevity means it also lacks informative content, so it is not particularly helpful beyond being brief.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (five parameters, no output schema), the description is too sparse to provide adequate context. The agent must infer the tool's purpose from the name and schema, and there's no guidance on behavioral expectations or selection among siblings.

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 thoroughly describes all five parameters with ranges and descriptions, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the action as a swipe gesture on the screen, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from similar gestures like drag or scroll, which may also involve coordinates. Lacks sibling differentiation.

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 usage context is provided. The description doesn't explain when to use swipe versus alternative tools such as scroll or drag, nor does it mention any prerequisites like screen state or element visibility.

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