Find UI elements by matching label, description, or resource ID in a fresh Android screen snapshot. Use results to identify targets before tapping, swiping, or typing.
Find label, description or resource-ID matches in a fresh UI snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| serial | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail: it operates on a 'fresh' snapshot rather than a cached one, implying a new capture each call. It says nothing about match cardinality, failure behavior when nothing matches, or the optional serial's effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with the action and match targets front-loaded. No filler, nothing to trim.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, a device-oriented lookup tool with a required query and an optional serial leaves the agent guessing about multi-device behavior, empty-match results, and the relationship to phone_tap_element/phone_observe.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully explains the semantics of 'query' by naming the three attribute types that are searched (label, description, resource-ID), which the schema does not. However, the 'serial' parameter for targeting a device is entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb (find) and states precisely what is matched (label, description, resource-ID) as well as the data source (a fresh UI snapshot). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like phone_observe or phone_tap_element that also operate on the UI tree.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over phone_observe or phone_tap_element, no note that it returns matches rather than acting on them, and no mention of prerequisites such as a connected device. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.