Mobile Next MCP

Double Tap Screen

mobile_double_tap_on_screen

Destructive

Simulate a double-tap gesture at specific screen coordinates on mobile devices to interact with apps or UI elements.

Instructions

Double-tap on the screen at given x,y coordinates.

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": {
      "device": "<device>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "mobile_double_tap_on_screen"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`device`	Yes	The device identifier to use. Use mobile_list_available_devices to find which devices are available to you.
`x`	Yes	The x coordinate to double-tap, in pixels
`y`	Yes	The y coordinate to double-tap, in pixels

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.0Jan 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description offers no behavioral context beyond the action itself. While the destructiveHint annotation indicates potential destructive effects, the description does not elaborate on consequences, such as triggering app actions or changing UI state, which would be valuable for an agent deciding to invoke this tool.

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 action and inputs. There is no unnecessary information, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple action tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient to convey its purpose and usage. However, it could be slightly enhanced by noting typical return behavior or potential side effects, but the current level is adequate.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (x, y, device), including units and a hint for finding devices. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the action (double-tap) and target (screen), and specifies the input as x,y coordinates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like click, long press, and swipe, which involve different gestures.

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 a double-tap gesture is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as single tap or long press. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided beyond the tool name and description.

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