long_pressPress and hold at specified coordinates or a UI element on an Android device for a defined duration, enabling long-press interactions like context menus or item selection.
Press and hold at (x, y) or a mark.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| som_id | 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 burden, but it only names the gesture. It does not disclose the default hold duration (800ms), what a 'mark' is or how it is resolved, whether a device must be specified, or any side effects. 'Or a mark' introduces an unexplained behavior not reflected in the schema.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states the action immediately. However, the unexplained 'mark' concept makes it less self-contained than it appears.
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?
With 5 optional parameters, a 0% described schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent. It fails to explain the 'mark' alternative, coordinate origin/format, device targeting, or duration semantics. The presence of an output schema only removes the need to describe return values; it doesn't fill these input gaps.
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 only glosses x/y via 'at (x, y)' and vaguely references a 'mark' that is not a parameter. The device, som_id, and duration_ms parameters receive no semantic explanation, leaving the agent to infer them from names/defaults.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Press and hold') and a target ('at (x, y) or a mark'), which clearly sets it apart from sibling gestures like tap and double_tap. It is not a tautology and gives enough to identify the tool's core function.
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 description gives no guidance on when to choose long_press over tap, double_tap, or swipe. There is no mention of contexts (e.g., triggering context menus), exclusions, or alternative selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.