Simulate a touch-and-hold on an Android screen at specified coordinates for a set duration. Enables UI automation and testing of press-and-hold interactions.
Long-press at (x, y) for duration_ms (implemented as a zero-distance swipe).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| serial | No | ||
| duration_ms | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add a genuinely useful behavioural detail — that the gesture is implemented as a zero-distance swipe — but says nothing about side effects, what a long-press triggers, or how interruption affects it.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the coordinate, the duration and the implementation caveat all earn their place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core gesture is clear. Still, with no annotations and an entirely undocumented serial parameter, the definition stops short of fully equipping an agent to call it correctly in multi-device scenarios.
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%, and the description maps x, y and duration_ms to their roles in the operation, which is more than the bare schema titles give. However, it never mentions the serial parameter or the units/meaning of duration_ms, leaving part of the parameter set undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (long-press) and the exact resource/coordinates, and the parenthetical implementation note distinguishes it from sibling gestures like tap, swipe and drag. An agent can tell what this does and how it differs from the neighbouring gesture tools.
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 name and description imply the gesture's purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose long_press over tap, swipe or drag, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.