Execute long press at specified coordinates or on a UI element to open context menus, enter selection mode, or enable drag handles.
Long-press at (x, y) or on an element found by selector (context menus, selection mode, drag handles).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| index | No | ||
| duration | No | ||
| resource_id | No | ||
| text_contains | 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 a heavier burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state the underlying action and target modes, plus expected UI outcomes, but it does not discuss duration semantics, potential side effects, or what happens when both coordinates and a selector are supplied. The core gesture is clear, but deeper behavioral context is missing.
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 wasted words. It communicates the action, the two targeting modes, and the typical use cases efficiently.
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?
Given seven parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, this one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to confidently choose and populate parameters. The tool's basic purpose is clear, but important contextual details about selector fields and duration are left unspecified, despite an output schema being present.
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 add meaning to the seven parameters. It explicitly mentions x and y and the concept of selecting an element by selector, but it does not explain how text, index, resource_id, text_contains, or duration behave. The generic 'selector' wording only partially compensates for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
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?
Description states a specific action ('long-press'), clearly specifies the two target modes (coordinates or element via selector), and gives concrete use cases (context menus, selection mode, drag handles) that distinguish it from sibling tools like tap, double_tap, and swipe. It is neither a tautology nor vague about what the tool does.
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 mention of 'context menus, selection mode, drag handles' provides clear contextual guidance on when a long-press is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives like tap or double_tap or state when not to use this tool, but the intended use context is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.