Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
twiddle-mcp

twiddle-mcp

by roti-c137
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_ui_tree

Retrieve the current accessibility tree as structured text with reference markers for tapping or typing, providing a cost-effective alternative to screenshots for precise UI interaction.

Instructions

Get the current accessibility tree as structured text with [ref=eN] markers usable in tap/type_text. Much cheaper and more precise than a screenshot.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_ui_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deviceNoDevice id from list_devices. Optional when exactly one device is booted.
filterNoDefault 'interactive'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and states it is cheap, which is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or state change.

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, concise and front-loaded with the essential purpose and output format. No unnecessary information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the output format and its utility. It could be more precise about the marker structure, but overall adequate.

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 description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 it retrieves the accessibility tree as structured text with markers for interaction, and explicitly distinguishes it from screenshot by noting it is cheaper and more precise.

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 description provides a clear comparison to screenshot, suggesting when to prefer this tool over an alternative. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention when not to use it.

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