Perform a double-tap on an Android UI element using coordinates or a selector (text, resource ID, or index) to execute actions like zooming or selecting.
Double-tap at (x, y) or on an element found by selector (text / resource_id / index).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| index | No | ||
| resource_id | 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, and the description does not disclose side effects, such as whether the gesture triggers app actions, changes UI state, or requires any preconditions. The full burden falls on the description, which is minimal.
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 one short sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and directly states the two targeting modes.
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 tool with no annotations and minimal parameter metadata, the description lacks important context such as expected behavior, potential side effects, error conditions, and return value. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but not complete for safe and correct invocation.
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?
The schema has no parameter descriptions, and the tool description only lists parameter names without explaining coordinate origin, precedence rules, whether x/y are required together, or how selector parameters interact. Coverage is too low to rely on the schema, and the description does not fully compensate.
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 the action (double-tap) and the two supported target modes: coordinates (x, y) or an element selector (text / resource_id / index). This distinguishes it from sibling gestures like tap, long_press, and swipe.
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 does not explain when to prefer double-tap over tap, long_press, or other gestures. It only describes what the tool does, not the conditions or context in which it should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.