Press and hold an Android UI element by index or screen coordinates for a specified duration to trigger context menus or alternative actions.
Long-press an element number (index) or a point (x, y in screenshot pixels).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| ms | No | ||
| index | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether the call blocks until the gesture completes, what it returns, whether it requires an active device connection, or how the press duration behaves by default — the `ms` control is never acknowledged.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler, and the gesture and its two targeting modes are front-loaded. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across four parameters, the description is too thin for an interaction tool. The duration parameter, return behavior, and prerequisites all go unexplained.
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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully defines `index` as an element number and pins x/y to screenshot pixels, which is real added meaning, but it is silent on `ms`, the parameter that actually defines a long press.
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 two concrete targeting modes (element `index` or x/y point), which lets an agent separate it from the tap/tap_element siblings by gesture type. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 word 'or' hints at the two targeting modes but there is no guidance on when a long press is appropriate versus tap/tap_element, nor when to prefer `index` over coordinates. No preconditions (connected device, UI elements already fetched) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.