Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
qa-mcp-server

qa-mcp-server

by Gabnagawo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

input_text

Types text into the focused Android field during QA testing; tap the target field first, or the action fails when no element has input focus.

Instructions

Type text into the focused field. Tap the field first; fails if nothing is focused.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "input_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesASCII letters, digits, space and @._,:/+=- only (device-shell safe).
serialNo
require_focusNoFail if no element has input focus (default). Tap the field first.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
detailYes
serialYes
dry_runYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only but non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds the failure behavior when nothing is focused, but this is also reflected by the require_focus parameter, so the added value beyond structured fields is modest.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical precondition. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 text-entry tool with an output schema and detailed parameter schema, the description covers the core action, precondition, and failure mode. It does not need to explain return values, though it could mention keyboard alternatives more explicitly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, with the schema already documenting the text character restrictions, optional serial, and require_focus semantics. The description does not add meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: type text into the focused field. It is clearly a text-entry action distinct from siblings like tap or press_key, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against those alternatives.

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?

Provides an important precondition and usage sequence: tap the field first. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as press_key for special keys or tap for focus changes.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools