Manos MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Find elements

find_elements

Search the current screen for UI elements by id, text, accessibility, or other criteria. Returns matching elements with bounds and details to disambiguate before acting.

Instructions

Search the current screen for elements matching a query. Returns matching elements (id, bounds, text, etc.) — handy to disambiguate before acting.

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": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>"
    },
    "name": "find_elements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`text`	No
`index`	No
`device_id`	Yes	Device id from list_devices (adb serial like 'emulator-5554', or an iOS simulator UDID)
`resource_id`	No
`accessibility`	No
`clickable_only`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'Returns matching elements' but does not describe how query parameters are combined (AND/OR), whether it waits for elements to appear, what happens on no match (empty list vs error), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a search tool with 7 parameters.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action. The additional clause about return values and use case adds value without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not explain the output structure beyond 'id, bounds, text, etc.', nor does it cover matching behavior or edge cases. The lack of a return schema and the minimal description leave the agent with many unknowns.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 14% (only device_id is described), and the description does not compensate. The term 'query' vaguely suggests the parameters are filters, but no explanation is given for id, text, index, resource_id, accessibility, or clickable_only. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the matching semantics remain unclear.

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's function: 'Search the current screen for elements matching a query.' It specifies the resource (current screen) and the verb (search), and indicates the return value (matching elements with attributes). This distinguishes it from siblings like find_text, which is specifically text-based, and inspect_screen, which likely returns the full hierarchy.

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 clear usage context: 'handy to disambiguate before acting.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (before taking an action to verify element details). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks a full exclusionary guideline.

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