Presses and holds at specified screen coordinates for a set duration to trigger press-and-hold gestures on iOS devices during app testing.
Press and hold at coordinates (points).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | Points from left | |
| y | Yes | Points from top | |
| device | No | Device UDID or name substring. Defaults to the select_device choice, then IOS_DEVICE_MCP_DEVICE, else the single USB-connected device. | |
| duration | No | Seconds (default 1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 basic action and omits details like the effect of duration, what a long press might trigger (e.g., context menus), or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the fully described schema, the description covers the core action adequately. However, for a UI interaction tool, it lacks usage context and behavioral details that would help an agent decide when to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds 'coordinates (points)' which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional semantics beyond what is already specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('press and hold') and resource ('coordinates'), making the core action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like tap or double_tap, which also involve pressing at coordinates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use long_press versus alternatives such as tap or double_tap. The description offers no context about scenarios that require a long press.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.