Skip to main content
Glama

Double-tap

double_tap

Double-tap at screen coordinates or on elements matched by text or resource ID to trigger actions on Android and iOS devices.

Instructions

Double-tap x, y in physical pixels, or the center of the node whose text or contentDesc (iOS: label or value) equals text, or whose resource id (iOS: identifier) matches id. An iPhone needs install_runner once.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "double_tap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
idNoResource id, full or the part after :id/ (iOS: identifier).
textNoExact text or contentDesc (iOS: label or value), case-sensitive.
deviceNoId or name.
timeoutNoWith text or id: ms to keep reading the tree until the node appears; the call can run up to 6 s longer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context (physical pixel unit, iPhone runner prerequisite) but is silent on multi-match behavior, ambiguity when both xy and text/id are given, and failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and targeting modes; the iPhone prerequisite is a useful trailing note. Slightly run-on but every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no required params, the description covers the targeting semantics and setup prerequisite adequately. Gaps are minor: device selection and behavior when a target isn't found are unaddressed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Adds real meaning beyond the schema: x/y are physical pixels, text matches contentDesc/label/value, id matches identifier on iOS. This compensates for the 67% coverage gap. The device parameter is never explained in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (double-tap) and the three targeting modes (coordinates, node text/contentDesc, resource id) with iOS equivalents. Clear what it does, but never distinguishes itself from the sibling tap/long_press tools.

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?

Explains the alternative targeting strategies (xy vs text vs id) and adds a concrete prerequisite for iPhone (install_runner once). Lacks any 'when to use vs tap/long_press' guidance, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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