mcp-android-emulator

tap_safe

Tap at screen coordinates while automatically excluding system status and navigation bars, preventing accidental system UI activation.

Instructions

Tap at coordinates while avoiding system navigation bars

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": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "tap_safe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	Yes	X coordinate
`y`	Yes	Y coordinate
`avoidNavBar`	No	Avoid navigation bar area (default: true)
`avoidStatusBar`	No	Avoid status bar area (default: true)

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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions avoiding navigation bars. It omits the status bar avoidance (shown in the schema as default true) and does not explain what happens if coordinates fall within the avoided areas. 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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and every word adds value. It is 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 description is adequate for a simple tap tool, especially with a fully documented schema. However, it lacks behavioral details about status bar avoidance and edge-case handling, and does not clarify the distinction from the 'tap' sibling beyond the basic avoidance feature.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters, so the schema already documents parameter semantics. The description adds no extra syntax or format details beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states the action ('Tap at coordinates') and the distinguishing feature ('while avoiding system navigation bars'), differentiating it from the sibling tool 'tap'. This is a specific verb+resource with a clear scope.

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 tapping at coordinates that might overlap with system navigation bars, but it does not explicitly compare with the 'tap' sibling or state when not to use it. The usage context is present but not elaborated.

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