Tap an Android UI element by its resource ID or Appium locator to trigger actions during automated mobile testing.
[approval required][device mutation][risk:dangerous] Tap by Android resource id or Appium id locator.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serverUrl | No | ||
| sessionId | Yes | ||
| resourceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The bracketed tags '[approval required][device mutation][risk:dangerous]' are likely part of the description but act as annotations. However, the description adds little beyond these tags: no details on side effects, permissions, or error conditions. With no annotations present, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the mutation risk.
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?
The description is a single sentence, concise and gets to the point. It includes the necessary context for the resource id parameter. No wasted words.
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?
For a mutation tool with dangerous risk, the description lacks guidance on preconditions (e.g., app must be launched), error scenarios, or behavioral details. It also doesn't explain the 'serverUrl' parameter or how session is used. Incomplete for safe and correct usage.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains 'resourceId' (Android resource id or Appium id locator), but leaves 'serverUrl' and 'sessionId' entirely undocumented. The description adds minimal value for the parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the action (tap) and the target (by Android resource id or Appium id locator). It distinguishes from sibling tools like appium.tap_by_text and appium.tap_coordinates by specifying the locator type.
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?
The description implies usage for Android UI automation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tap_by_accessibility_id or tap_by_text. No exclusions or alternative routing provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.