mcp-android-emulator

tap_element

Finds and taps UI elements on Android emulators by text or resource ID, offering exact matching and index selection for multiple matches.

Instructions

Find and tap an element by text or resource-id (more reliable than tap_text)

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": "tap_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	No	Text to search for
`exact`	No	Exact text match (default: false)
`index`	No	Index if multiple matches (0-based, default: 0)
`resourceId`	No	Resource ID to search for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It states what it does but doesn't disclose failure behavior, waiting/timeout behavior, or side effects beyond tapping. The reliability note is comparative, not a disclosure of how the tool behaves internally.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with core action, includes the comparative advantage without waste. Perfectly concise.

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 4-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers core purpose and a comparative advantage, but lacks details on precedence when both text and resourceId are given, error handling, or element-not-found behavior.

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?

Schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (text, exact, index, resourceId), so description adds no new parameter semantics beyond echoing text and resource-id. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Find and tap an element by text or resource-id' distinguishes from sibling tap_text by noting higher reliability. Also specifies the two key search modes.

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?

Explicitly positions itself against tap_text ('more reliable than tap_text'), giving clear preference context. Doesn't delineate when not to use it or mention alternatives like coordinate-based tap, but the comparative note provides actionable guidance.

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