Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
run-sequence-android-mcp

run-sequence-android-mcp

by nasiosheva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Press Key

android_press_key

Press Android hardware or navigation keys by name or numeric keycode to control a connected device or emulator.

Instructions

Press a hardware or navigation key. Common keys: BACK, HOME, ENTER, MENU, APP_SWITCH, POWER, VOLUME_UP, VOLUME_DOWN, DELETE, TAB, DPAD_UP/DOWN/LEFT/RIGHT/CENTER. Any Android KEYCODE_* name or numeric keycode also works.

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": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "android_press_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesKey name (e.g. 'BACK', 'KEYCODE_CAMERA') or numeric keycode
deviceNoDevice id (serial or host:port). Optional -- when omitted, uses ANDROID_MCP_DEVICE env or auto-selects the connected device (physical devices preferred over emulators).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It describes the action as 'press' but does not detail behavior for invalid keys, device selection fallback (beyond schema), or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple action but lacks depth.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences: first states purpose, second provides examples. Extremely concise with no wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple press tool with no output schema, the description covers the key purpose and valid inputs. It is mostly complete, but could mention device selection behavior (though schema covers it) and error handling.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing common key names and explaining that KEYCODE_* or numeric keycodes work, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's generic 'Key name' description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool presses hardware or navigation keys, and provides a list of common keys. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that interact with UI elements (tap, long_press, etc.).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for hardware keys but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tapping or long-pressing UI elements. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools