long_press_atSimulate a sustained press at specific (x, y) coordinates on a mobile device to trigger context menus, drag actions, or hold gestures during AI-driven automation.
Long press at (x, y) (mobilerun agent action).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| device | 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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about press duration, whether a context menu or drag is triggered, permission requirements, or reversibility. The critical behavioral property of a 'long press' (how long, what it triggers) is absent.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action. The trailing '(mobilerun agent action)' parenthetical is filler that adds no selection value but costs little.
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 not be explained, but the description still omits the undocumented 'device' parameter and any behavioral detail for a mutation-like gesture tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 0% across 3 parameters. The description only echoes the required x/y coordinates and says nothing about the optional 'device' parameter, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 (long press) and resource (a coordinate pair), which implicitly separates it from the node-based 'long_press' sibling. Sibling differentiation is implied by '(x, y)' rather than stated, but an agent can infer the distinction.
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 guidance on when to use this versus 'long_press', 'tap', or 'double_tap'. No prerequisite or context conditions are given beyond the required coordinates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.