Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
twiddle-mcp

twiddle-mcp

by roti-c137
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

type_text

Types text into the focused UI element on a mobile app, with options to tap a field first or submit the input.

Instructions

Type text into the focused field (optionally tap a field first via ref/selector). submit presses Enter/Return.

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
refNoField to tap before typing
textYes
deviceNoDevice id from list_devices. Optional when exactly one device is booted.
submitNo
selectorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers key behaviors (typing into focused field, optional tap, submit pressing Enter) but omits details such as error handling if no field is focused, whether text is appended or replaced, or the return value. This is adequate 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no fluff. Every word contributes. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description covers the main flow but is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on focus failure, device handling (though covered in schema), or return values. Could be more thorough for a mutation tool.

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?

The description adds meaning to 'ref', 'selector', and 'submit' parameters beyond the schema, but the critical 'text' parameter remains undocumented. Since schema coverage is only 40%, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps for the most important parameter.

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 main action ('Type text into the focused field') and specifies optional field tapping and submit behavior. It is unambiguous but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'tap' or 'press_button', missing the top-tier differentiation.

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 only implies usage contexts (e.g., 'optionally tap a field first') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tap' or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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