Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Android-MCP

Android-MCP

by HadyAhmed00
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Press-Tool

Press Android device buttons—home, back, power, volume, and more—by name or raw KEYCODE to enable direct UI control and automated testing without scripts or computer vision.

Instructions

Press a device button: home, back, menu, power, volume_up, volume_down, enter, delete. Also accepts raw Android KEYCODE strings.

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": {
      "button": "<button>"
    },
    "name": "Press-Tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buttonYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that raw Android KEYCODE strings are accepted, which is valuable behavioral detail, but it does not mention side effects, whether the press is a simple tap, or any device/OS prerequisites.

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, efficient sentence with a clear front-loaded action and a concise enumeration of valid inputs. Every part adds useful information 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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the action, the target resource, and the full set of accepted input forms. A minor gap is the lack of an example raw KEYCODE string, but the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema provides only a bare string parameter with 0% coverage and no enum. The description compensates by listing the concrete valid values (home, back, menu, power, volume_up, volume_down, enter, delete) and noting raw KEYCODE strings are also accepted, adding substantial meaning beyond 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 ('press') and resource ('device button'), and enumerates the exact accepted values. It also distinguishes itself from sibling UI-interaction tools by targeting hardware device buttons rather than on-screen elements.

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 for hardware device button presses, but it does not explicitly contrast Press-Tool with sibling tools like Click-Tool or Long-Click-Tool. There is no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance beyond the stated button domains.

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