Simulates a long press at specified Android screen coordinates for a set duration, enabling touch-and-hold interactions over ADB.
Long-press at coordinates
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| ms | No | ||
| serial | No | Device serial (optional; defaults to first ADB_SERIAL entry or the only connected device) |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about the default 800ms hold, whether the call blocks until the gesture completes, or what side effects (context menus, drag start, selection) the press triggers.
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 single clause is front-loaded and free of filler, so nothing is wasted. But at four words it is under-specified rather than truly concise, leaving essential context for the caller to infer.
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 4-parameter interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the gesture's effect, duration semantics, and device targeting. An agent has to fall back entirely on the schema and prior knowledge of ADB-style long presses.
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 only 25%: x and y have no descriptions at all. The phrase 'at coordinates' weakly implies x/y are screen coordinates, but the description adds no units, coordinate origin, or range information to compensate for the gap.
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 target (coordinates), so the basic action is identifiable. However, it does little to distinguish itself from the sibling tap or tap_element beyond the word 'long', and gives no indication of what a long-press accomplishes on this device.
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?
No guidance on when to use long_press instead of tap, swipe, or tap_element. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a connected device) or of the conditions that make a long press the right gesture.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.