Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
esp32-iphone-agent

esp32-iphone-agent

by onehumanbeing
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

type_text

Types text into the focused iPhone field through the ESP32 keyboard; for Chinese, enter pinyin and commit the candidate with a space or tap.

Instructions

Type text into the focused field. ASCII only: Chinese is typed as pinyin (then commit a candidate with press_key space or a tap).

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "type_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
deviceNoboard id; only needed with several boards

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a hard behavioral constraint (ASCII only) and the pinyin workaround, which an agent could not infer otherwise. It does not say whether existing field content is replaced or appended, what happens if no field is focused, or what a failure looks like — meaningful gaps for a mutation-style input tool.

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, zero filler, with the core action and the most surprising constraint front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a small two-parameter tool with no output schema, the essential gotcha (non-ASCII input) is covered. With no annotations, however, the description leaves the mutation profile unexplained — field-clearing behavior, focus prerequisites, and error outcomes are all absent, which is a real gap for a text-entry tool.

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 50% and the undocumented parameter is the critical one, `text`. The description compensates by constraining its content (ASCII only) and explaining the pinyin substitution path, which is genuine meaning beyond the bare `string` type. The `device` parameter needs no help because the schema already explains it.

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 opens with a specific verb and target: 'Type text into the focused field.' That is concrete enough to separate it from press_key (single keystroke) and tap (pointer action) without opening the schema. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'into the focused field' implicitly tells the agent that focus must be established first (via tap or press_key), and the Chinese branch routes the agent to press_key space or tap to commit a candidate — real cross-tool guidance. It does not spell out an explicit when-not or a full alternative comparison, so 4 is the ceiling.

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