press_keySimulates Android hardware and navigation key presses, including Back, Home, Enter, arrows, Power, and volume, so an AI agent can control a real phone.
Press a hardware/navigation key: back, home, enter, delete, tab, escape, up, down, left, right, space, power, volup, voldown, recent, menu, wakeup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| device | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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 states the action but does not disclose side effects, permissions, target-device assumptions, or the potentially disruptive nature of keys like power, delete, back, or home.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key list is long but directly useful and appropriately placed after the core action.
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 simple key-press tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient about the action and key values. It is incomplete because it omits the optional 'device' parameter and does not disclose any behavioral effects, which matters given the absence of annotations.
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 does add meaningful semantics for the required 'key' parameter by listing valid key names, but it does not mention the optional 'device' parameter at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Press a hardware/navigation key') and enumerates the supported keys, making the core action clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with siblings like tap, long_press, type_text, or swipe, so sibling 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 description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage through the list of key names, but does not name alternatives such as tap or type_text or explain when this tool is preferred over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.