Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
adb-ai

adb-ai

by cyberpunk2183
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

adb_tap

Tap a specific coordinate on an Android phone or tablet screen to simulate touch input; take a screenshot and check screen bounds first to find the correct x/y position.

Instructions

Tap a point on the screen. For phones and tablets - a TV is driven with adb_key instead. Take a screenshot first to find the coordinates, and adb_screen_size to know the bounds.

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": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "adb_tap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes
deviceNoserial, ip[:port] or saved alias; omit to use the default device

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral constraint (device-class limitation) plus the coordinate-discovery workflow. It does not say what the call returns or whether it blocks/waits, which leaves a modest gap for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, no waste, with the core action and the device-class routing front-loaded before the setup tips.

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 3-parameter, non-annotated, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, device applicability, and coordinate sourcing. The only missing piece is return/error behavior, which no other structured field supplies.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33% (x and y are bare integers), but the description compensates by defining them as screen pixel coordinates bounded by adb_screen_size and sourced from a screenshot. The device parameter is already documented in the schema, so no repetition is needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Tap a point on the screen") and immediately differentiates the sibling case: TVs are driven with adb_key instead. An agent can tell adb_tap apart from adb_key without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use (phones and tablets), when-not (TV → adb_key), plus the prerequisite workflow: screenshot first to find coordinates, adb_screen_size to know bounds. Both alternatives are named with the condition that selects them.

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