Simulate a double-tap gesture at exact X/Y coordinates on an iOS simulator to trigger zoom, select text, or activate UI elements during automated mobile testing.
Double tap at coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | X coordinate | |
| y | Yes | Y coordinate | |
| device_id | Yes | Simulator UDID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not say the target must be a booted simulator, whether it requires an active session, what happens if coordinates are outside the screen, or what the interaction does to app state. For a UI-mutating gesture tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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 zero filler, and the key action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal economy.
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 need no explanation, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, with no annotations and no output/behavioral context, the description omits the operational prerequisites (device must be booted, session state) that an agent needs before invoking a gesture on a simulator.
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 100% (x, y, device_id all documented), so the schema already does the work and the baseline is 3. The description adds no coordinate-space detail (e.g., points vs pixels, origin corner) beyond what the schema states.
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 specific gesture verb ('double tap') and its target ('at coordinates'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling gestures 'tap' and 'long_press'. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the distinct gesture name makes the resource unambiguous.
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 use this versus 'tap' or 'long_press', no prerequisites (e.g., simulator must be booted, session active), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.