Press and hold a UI element or x,y coordinates on an Android device to trigger a press-and-hold gesture, with configurable hold duration and screen settling before returning the updated UI.
Press and hold an element handle or "x,y".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| hold_ms | No | ||
| max_wait_ms | No | ||
| observe_after | 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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and adds almost nothing. It doesn't say whether the call blocks, what 'observe_after' triggers, whether the hold is interruptible, or what side effects a long press produces (context menus, drag initiation).
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 short sentence with no waste and the essential resource front-loaded. The brevity is efficient but leans into under-specification rather than earned concision.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but for a 4-parameter interaction tool with zero annotation coverage the definition leaves timing, waiting, and post-action observation behavior unexplained. An agent cannot confidently set hold_ms or observe_after from this text.
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, and it only clarifies the 'target' format ('element handle or "x,y"'). The three optional parameters (hold_ms, max_wait_ms, observe_after) remain entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their semantics to guesswork.
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 concrete verb ('press and hold') and the accepted target forms ('an element handle or "x,y"'), which is more specific than the bare name. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling 'tap', which is the key ambiguity, so it stops short of 5.
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?
No guidance on when to choose long_press over tap, tap_text, or swipe, and no preconditions stated. The agent must infer that this is the 'hold' variant purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.