long_pressPress and hold on a mobile device screen at coordinates or elements for a specified duration to trigger context menus, drag, or other actions.
Press and hold at (x, y), a mark (som_id) or a get_state element (index). Hold time: duration_ms or ms (default 1000).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| ms | No | ||
| index | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| som_id | No | ||
| duration_ms | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden, and it does surface the default hold time (1000 ms) and both duration parameter aliases. However, it says nothing about what a long press actually triggers (context menus, deletions, drag initiation), permission needs, or the device parameter's effect, which is a meaningful gap for an interaction tool with destructive potential.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and targeting options before the timing detail. Every clause carries information not available elsewhere in structured form.
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. But for a 7-parameter, zero-coverage, annotation-free interaction tool, the description leaves 'device' undocumented and does not clarify mode precedence or the behavioral consequence of the hold, leaving real 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: x/y coordinates, som_id as 'a mark', index as 'a get_state element', and critically the ms/duration_ms alias and default of 1000 ms, none of which the schema conveys. It omits the 'device' parameter entirely, and does not state that the targeting modes are mutually exclusive alternatives.
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: 'Press and hold' with three concrete targeting modes (coordinates, som_id mark, get_state index). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling 'long_press_at', which an agent must choose between.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of which targeting mode takes precedence, and no routing to or away from alternatives such as 'press', 'tap', or the sibling 'long_press_at'. The agent must infer usage entirely from the gesture name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.