Trigger a long press at specified screen coordinates to open context menus or select items on an Android device. Adjustable duration supports precise interaction control.
Hosszan tartott nyomas (x, y)-on - pl. kontextusmenuhoz vagy elem kijeloleshez.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| serial | No | ||
| duration_ms | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic gesture and a use case, omitting details such as how duration_ms affects the press, whether it triggers side effects like menus, or whether it blocks/wait for UI changes. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.
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 that front-loads the core action ('long press on (x,y)') and appends a brief use case. There is no redundant or filler text; every word contributes to understanding.
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?
The tool has four parameters including optional duration_ms and serial, yet the description covers only the coordinates and the basic use case. With no annotations and an output schema that is not referenced, the description is adequate only for a minimal default invocation, but incomplete for an agent needing to handle device selection, timing, or expected outcomes.
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 references the x and y coordinates. It adds no meaning for duration_ms (e.g., that it controls press duration) or serial (e.g., which device to target), so the agent cannot infer the semantics of half the parameters from the description.
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 clearly states a specific action (long press) on a specific resource (coordinate x,y) and gives a concrete purpose (context menu or element selection). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tap, double_tap, and swipe, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies when to use the tool: when a context menu or element selection is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or how it compares to sibling gesture tools such as tap or double_tap, leaving the decision largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.