android-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mobile_gesture_combo

Execute multi-step gesture sequences on Android devices, including tap, swipe, drag, and hold actions, for automated testing or control.

Instructions

Execute a multi-step gesture sequence (array of steps). Each step can be tap, swipe, fastswipe, tap-hold, drag, press, move, release, hold, swipe-hold-start, swipe-hold-end, or swipe-hold-startend.

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": {
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "mobile_gesture_combo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`steps`	Yes	Array of gesture steps to execute in sequence
`serial`	No	ADB device serial (optional)
`return_screen`	No	Capture screen after sequence (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only lists actions without explaining failure modes, coordinate systems, whether the sequence is atomic, or side effects. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it lists many actions inline, which could benefit from a bulleted list for readability. Minimal waste, but not perfectly structured.

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 complexity of nested steps and many action types, the description is too brief. It does not explain sequencing, delays, return values, or coordinate semantics. Lacks essential context for a tool with no output schema.

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%, so baseline 3. The description repeats the action list already in the schema but adds no new semantics about parameter usage, like how coordinates relate or what units are used. No added value beyond schema.

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 states the tool executes a multi-step gesture sequence and lists the supported actions. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'mobile_gesture' which presumably handles single gestures, missing an opportunity to guide selection.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mobile_gesture or mobile_gesture_macro, and no conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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