frida-ios-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

double_tap

Simulates a double-tap gesture at specified coordinates or on a UI element reference. Optionally adjusts the tap interval and triggers a snapshot.

Instructions

Double-tap (like) at ref or x,y. gapMs default 140. resnapshot default true.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "double_tap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	No
`y`	No
`ref`	No
`gapMs`	No	Default 140
`resnapshot`	No	Default true

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions default values for gapMs (140) and resnapshot (true), but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or behavior when coordinates are invalid. The phrase 'double-tap (like)' hints at a like action but lacks detailed behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with three short sentences. The main action is front-loaded. While it could be more structured (e.g., listing parameters), it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters (none required), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values, success criteria, or how x,y and ref interact. The defaults are mentioned, but overall context for a reliable call is lacking.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 40% (only gapMs and resnapshot have descriptions). The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'ref' is an alternative to x,y for location, and restates defaults for gapMs and resnapshot. However, it does not explain the relationship between x,y and ref (e.g., mutually exclusive) or provide constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs a 'double-tap (like)' action at a location specified by either ref or x,y coordinates. The verb 'double-tap' and resource implication are specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'tap' or 'swipe'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'tap' (single tap) or 'swipe'. The description implies a 'like' action but does not clarify context or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.