android-phone-control

by FZ2000

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

type_text

Enters text into a targeted field on an Android device. It can clear the field first, press Enter to submit, and verify the text appeared by re-reading the screen.

Instructions

Type text into a field on the phone.

Args: text: The text to type. Use "\n" for a line break. target: The field to type into, as a number or label from read_screen. When omitted, the text goes to whatever already has focus. replace: Clear the field first instead of appending to it. submit: Press Enter afterwards, for search bars and message boxes. verify: Re-read the screen afterwards and report whether the text actually landed, which catches a tap that missed the field.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	The text to type, or the text to replace the clipboard with.
`submit`	No	Press Enter afterwards, for search bars and message boxes.
`target`	No	Which control, by its number from read_screen or by its visible label.
`verify`	No	Read the screen back afterwards and report whether the text landed.
`replace`	No	Clear the field first instead of adding to what it holds.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it explains the default append behavior, the replace option to clear first, the submit action, and verify re-reading the screen to confirm input landed. It does not fully disclose every edge case, but the key side effects are present.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a tight Args list. Every sentence earns its place by explaining behavior rather than repeating generic boilerplate.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers all five parameters with practical guidance, explains side effects clearly, and works with the output schema to give the agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. No critical invocation details are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the '\n' line-break convention, focus behavior when target is omitted, and the purpose of verify as a safety net for missed taps. Each parameter is given practical semantics not present in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Type text into a field on the phone') and immediately clarifies the tool's core action. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as tap, press_key, and clipboard, even without naming them explicitly.

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 gives solid parameter-level usage guidance, such as using submit 'for search bars and message boxes' and verify to catch a missed field. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives like tap, press_key, or clipboard; that selection is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server