run-sequence-android-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Long Press

android_long_press

Long-press the screen at specified x and y pixel coordinates with an optional duration and device, enabling precise touch-and-hold actions on Android devices.

Instructions

Long-press the screen at x,y pixel coordinates.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "android_long_press"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	Yes	X coordinate in pixels
`y`	Yes	Y coordinate in pixels
`device`	No	Device id (serial or host:port). Optional -- when omitted, uses ANDROID_MCP_DEVICE env or auto-selects the connected device (physical devices preferred over emulators).
`duration`	No	Press duration in milliseconds. Defaults to 500.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior but only says 'long-press'. It omits critical details: that it is a touch gesture, that duration is configurable, how it differs from tapping, and side effects (e.g., triggering context menus). This is insufficient behavioral coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—one sentence with no extraneous text. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary information, making it more under-specified than effectively concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It does not address return values, error conditions, or prerequisites such as device connectivity, making it insufficient for reliable agentic use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. It does not explain parameter defaults, constraints, or interactions (e.g., what constitutes a valid coordinate).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (long-press) and the resource (screen at coordinates). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like android_tap or android_double_tap, which have similar but distinct behaviors.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indications of appropriate contexts. The single sentence lacks any usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.