Clicks an Android UI element by searching the screen hierarchy for matching text or description and tapping its center.
Smart-click: searches the screen UI hierarchy for an element with matching text or description and taps its center.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text or content description of the button/label to click |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains the mechanism (UI-hierarchy search, match on text or content description, tap the center), but omits failure behavior, ambiguous/multiple match handling, and any prerequisite that the target screen be visible. Partial transparency 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the mechanism and the action without waste. 'Smart-click:' is mild marketing framing rather than informative content, a small deduction.
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 one-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mechanism adequately but leaves the agent uninformed about the result of the tap, multiple-match behavior, and failure cases. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already explains `text`. The description reinforces that matching accepts text OR content description, adding marginal meaning over the schema but no syntax, exact-match vs substring, or precedence rules.
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 (taps/clicks) and resource (an element matched by text or content description), and the mechanism ('searches the screen UI hierarchy') distinguishes it from coordinate-based android_tap. It is clear but never explicitly names a sibling, so differentiation is left implicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: the text-matching mechanism suggests using this when you know the label but not the coordinates, implicitly versus android_tap. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or fallback guidance (e.g. what to do if no match is found).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.