Swipe across an Android screen using pixel coordinates; identical start and end points trigger a long press.
Swipe in screenshot pixels. Equal endpoints produce a long press.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x1 | Yes | ||
| x2 | Yes | ||
| y1 | Yes | ||
| y2 | Yes | ||
| serial | No | ||
| duration_ms | 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 the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the long-press edge case (equal endpoints) and the coordinate frame, beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary operation is stated first and the edge case second.
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 explained, and annotations cover the mutation/safety profile. Still missing for a 6-parameter destructive gesture tool are the duration_ms semantics (how long the swipe takes) and the serial device selector, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only implies that x1/y1 and x2/y2 are the endpoints; duration_ms (default 400, range 50-10000) and serial are never explained, leaving the timing and device-selection semantics undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (swipe) and the resource with coordinate space clarified as "screenshot pixels", which is a genuine scoping detail. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling phone_scroll, so an agent must infer whether a drag gesture or a scroll call is appropriate.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. which device `serial` targets or that a screenshot coordinate frame is required), and no pointer to alternatives like phone_scroll or phone_tap for the same gesture family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.