browse_click
Click an element by its @eN ref from the last browse_snapshot.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | an @eN ref from browse_snapshot | |
| browser_id | Yes | from browse_open |
WingmanProtocol Agent Gateway
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide basic safety hints (destructiveHint=false). Description adds no details about side effects (e.g., navigation, form submission, page load waiting). For a click action, more behavioral context would help.
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?
Single sentence conveying essential information. No wasted words.
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?
Tool is simple, but description omits what happens after the click (e.g., return value, waiting behavior). Given no output schema, a brief note on expected outcome would improve completeness.
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?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. Description repeats info from schema without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'click', resource 'element by @eN ref', and context 'from last browse_snapshot'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like browse_fill, browse_type, browse_select.
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?
Implicitly indicates usage after obtaining a browse_snapshot and having an @eN ref. Does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the action is specific enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
Tool Count2/5
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Completeness4/5
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.