Perform swipe or drag gestures on Android devices by specifying start and end coordinates with adjustable duration.
Perform a swipe / drag gesture between two points (x1, y1) and (x2, y2) with a configurable duration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x1 | Yes | Start X coordinate | |
| x2 | Yes | End X coordinate | |
| y1 | Yes | Start Y coordinate | |
| y2 | Yes | End Y coordinate | |
| deviceId | No | Optional device ID | |
| duration | No | Swipe duration in milliseconds (default: 300ms) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states the gesture type and the configurable duration, but does not disclose any side effects, failure conditions, coordinate system assumptions, or whether the gesture is relative to the screen. The description is not misleading, but it adds little beyond what the name and schema already convey.
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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that leads with the action and key parameters. It avoids any unnecessary filler or repetition, making it efficient and easily parsed by an agent.
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?
For a simple gesture tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description explains the core action and duration. However, it omits any mention of coordinate system relative to the screen, potential prerequisites (e.g., device must be unlocked), or behavior when the gesture is out of bounds. These are minor gaps, but the tool is simple enough that this is mostly complete.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage, with all six parameters having descriptive text. The description mentions 'configurable duration' but this repeats the schema's duration field. It does not add extra meaning about coordinate units, origins, or any interaction between parameters. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'perform a swipe / drag gesture' and specifies the resource as 'between two points (x1, y1) and (x2, y2)'. This is distinct from sibling tools like android_tap (a tap) and android_scroll (a scroll), so an agent can immediately tell this is for arbitrary two-point gestures.
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?
The description implies usage—it is obviously for swipes/drags—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use android_tap for single taps', 'use android_scroll for scrollable areas'). No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, so the agent must infer applicability from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.