Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Android-MCP

Android-MCP

by HadyAhmed00
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Type-Tool

Focus an input field by tapping its (x,y) coordinates, then type the given text into it. Optionally clear the field before typing.

Instructions

Tap (x,y) to focus the input field, then type the given text. Only use on input/editable elements.

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>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "Type-Tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes
textYes
clearNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tap-to-focus-then-type behavior, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the behavior of the optional 'clear' parameter or what happens when the field already contains text. These are meaningful gaps for a typing tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage constraint is stated directly. Every word adds value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the essential flow and targeting constraint, making the tool usable. However, it omits behavior for the optional clear flag, lacks any note about return values (no output schema exists), and doesn't address edge cases like non-editable elements. These gaps matter given the absence of annotations.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains x and y as tap coordinates and text as the text to type. The optional 'clear' parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving its semantics and effect unknown to the agent.

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?

The description clearly states the action sequence: tap at coordinates to focus, then type text. It names the resource type (input/editable elements), which distinguishes it from generic click tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like Click-By-Label or Press-Tool beyond that constraint.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The sentence 'Only use on input/editable elements' provides an explicit usage condition and implicitly excludes non-editable targets. It gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not name alternative tools for other cases.

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