Click at normalized screen coordinates.
nx, ny: float 0.0000–1.0000 where (0,0) = top-left, (1,1) = bottom-right.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nx | Yes | ||
| ny | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the click action and normalized coordinates, but does not specify click type (left/right), whether mouse moves first, or any duration/delay. It adds some value beyond the schema but lacks thorough behavioral disclosure.
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 sentences with zero fluff: first sentence states action, second details parameters. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
The description is sufficient for a simple click action with normalized coordinates, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it could specify if it's left-click or default click type, and whether it moves the mouse. Minor gaps reduce from perfect.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains nx and ny as normalized floats in range 0-1 with origin at top-left, providing complete semantics for both parameters.
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 tool clicks at normalized screen coordinates, specifying the action (click) and the coordinate system (0,0 top-left to 1,1 bottom-right). This distinguishes it from siblings like move_mouse (no click) and double_click (two clicks).
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like double_click or move_mouse. It lacks usage context or prerequisites, which is a significant gap given the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: click actions, mouse movement, keyboard input, scrolling, screen captures (raw, calibrated, with grid or crosshair), and calibration. No overlap between tools.
All tools use snake_case verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., get_corners, take_screenshot, set_corners), with longer names following the same convention (e.g., take_screenshot_with_crosshair).
12 tools are well-scoped for remote computer control and calibration, covering essential actions without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers core operations (click, type, scroll, screenshot, calibration) but lacks a dedicated drag or right-click tool, which agents may need to work around.