Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
devilge

devilge

by Yercko
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Tap node by resource id

devilge_tap_resource_id

Taps a UI element by its resource ID for stable targeting across locales and code changes. Uses Modifier.testTag or Android resource-id.

Instructions

Like devilge_tap_text but matches by resource-id. More stable across copy/locale changes than text matching when the project uses Modifier.testTag.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesResource id (Compose `Modifier.testTag` or Android resource-id) of the node to tap.
serialNoDevice serial. Defaults to DEVILGE_DEFAULT_DEVICE_SERIAL or the only attached device.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (modifies UI state). The description adds that it's more stable across locale changes, but doesn't detail error handling or side effects. With annotations present, this is adequate.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and key comparison, with no wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tap tool, the description explains purpose, advantage over sibling, and when to use, which is sufficient. No output schema needed.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what schema provides, so baseline score is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it taps a node by resource id, and distinguishes it from devilge_tap_text by specifying the matching criterion and stability advantage.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides guidance on when to use (when resource id is available, for stability) and implies alternative (text matching) without explicit exclusion.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools