Simulate a press-and-hold gesture at specified Android screen coordinates to trigger context menus, drag actions, or hold interactions. Set x, y, and duration in milliseconds.
在屏幕指定坐标执行长按操作（通过零距离滑动模拟）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | 长按位置的 x 坐标。 | |
| y | Yes | 长按位置的 y 坐标。 | |
| duration_ms | No | 长按持续时间（毫秒），默认 1000ms。 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the implementation detail that the press is simulated via a zero-distance swipe, which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about side effects (context menus, drag initiation), whether the call blocks, or required permissions.
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 compact sentence with no filler; the core action and coordinate scope are front-loaded. Nothing is wasted.
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 and parameter coverage is complete, so return values and inputs need no elaboration. However, with zero annotations on a device-input action, the missing side-effect and preconditions information leaves a real gap for correct invocation.
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, and duration_ms (with a documented 1000ms default) are all fully specified in the schema. The description adds no coordinate or duration semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 verb+resource: perform a long press at given screen coordinates, and even explains the mechanism (zero-distance swipe simulation). It is distinguishable from tap_screen and swipe_screen by name, but the description does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.
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 indication of when to use this instead of tap_screen, swipe_screen, or other input tools, and no prerequisites or context (e.g., UI states where long press is required). The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.