mcp-android-emulator

wait_for_element

Waits until a UI element with the given text appears on the Android screen. Use an optional timeout to cap the wait duration.

Instructions

Wait for a UI element with specific text to appear

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "wait_for_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Text of the element to wait for
`timeout`	No	Timeout in seconds (default: 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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. It only states the core 'wait for appear' action, but omits critical behaviors: what happens on timeout (error vs false return), whether text matching is exact/substring, and whether it waits if the element is already visible. This is a significant gap for a wait operation.

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 redundant words. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

Despite having complete parameter documentation, the tool lacks an output schema or annotations, and the description does not explain return values or failure behavior. For a wait tool, knowing what happens on timeout is essential; this omission leaves the tool under-specified for an agent to handle errors correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'text' and 'timeout' already documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema (only 'specific text'), 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 the specific verb 'Wait for' and clearly identifies the resource: a UI element with specific text, with the outcome 'to appear'. This distinguishes it from related tools like wait_for_element_gone ('disappear') and is_element_visible (immediate check).

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 for waiting until an element appears, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. No alternative tools are referenced.

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