mcp-android-emulator

wait_for_element_gone

Pauses automation until a UI element with the specified text disappears from the Android screen, with configurable timeout.

Instructions

Wait for an element to disappear from 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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "wait_for_element_gone"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Text of the element to wait for disappearance
`timeout`	No	Timeout in milliseconds (default: 10000)

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and does not disclose timeout behavior, polling interval, exception handling, or what happens if the element never disappears. This is a significant lack of transparency for a waiting 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 concise sentence that directly states the core function. It is front-loaded and contains no irrelevant information, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

Although the schema documents parameters, the description lacks essential context about timeout handling and return values. With no output schema, the description should clarify what happens on success/failure, but it simply says 'wait for disappearance' without addressing these details.

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 input schema already describes both 'text' and 'timeout' with specific details (text purpose, timeout range and default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema's 100% coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

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 the resource 'an element' with condition 'disappear', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool wait_for_element. It is a precise, unambiguous statement of the tool's function.

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 an element needs to be gone from the screen before continuing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools such as wait_for_element or is_element_visible, nor does it provide exceptions or when not to use this tool.

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