Presses iPhone hardware buttons (Home, Volume Up/Down, Lock) for screen navigation, volume adjustment, and locking, with automatic unlock when a passcode is configured.
按硬件键:home(回主屏幕)、volume_up、volume_down、lock(锁屏;配置了密码时之后的操作会自动解锁)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| button | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that lock locks the screen and that subsequent operations auto-unlock when a password is configured, but it does not describe return values, error conditions, or whether volume presses have 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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that lists the supported buttons and their effects without any wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter hardware-key tool.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential button values and effects. It is nearly complete, though it could mention success/failure behavior or any device-state prerequisites.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by enumerating the accepted button values (home, volume_up, volume_down, lock) and explaining what each does, though it does not specify case sensitivity or whether other values are rejected.
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 and resource: pressing a hardware button on the iPhone. It also enumerates the supported button values and their meanings, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like iphone_tap or iphone_long_press.
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?
The description implies usage by listing hardware buttons, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iphone_tap or iphone_lock. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated beyond the note about password auto-unlock.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.