@wilsonbeam/openclaw-adb-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

adb_press_key

Press Android keycodes like HOME, BACK, or VOLUME on a connected device via ADB. Specify the keycode number to trigger device actions for automation.

Instructions

Press a key on the device (using Android keycode)

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": {
      "keycode": "<keycode>"
    },
    "name": "adb_press_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keycode`	Yes	Android keycode (e.g., 3=HOME, 4=BACK, 24=VOLUME_UP, 25=VOLUME_DOWN)
`deviceId`	No	Target device ID (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 only states that it presses a key, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., navigation changes), error behavior for invalid keycodes, or whether it requires an active adb connection. The phrase 'using Android keycode' is a technical detail about parameters, not a behavioral trait.

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 sentence with no filler words, front-loading the purpose immediately. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 low complexity, rich schema, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for the core action. However, with 30 sibling tools, it lacks enough detail to fully disambiguate from specialized key-press tools, so it does not exceed the minimum viable level.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, including descriptions and examples for keycode and deviceId, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'Android keycode' is redundant with the schema and does not add new meaning beyond it.

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 presses a key on the device using Android keycode, distinguishing it from siblings like adb_tap (touch) and adb_press_home (specific key). The verb 'press' and resource 'key on the device' are specific and accurate.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this generic key press versus specialized siblings such as adb_press_home or adb_press_back. It also does not mention prerequisites like requiring an unlocked screen or a connected device, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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