double_click
Double-click at normalized screen coordinates.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nx | Yes | ||
| ny | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Double-click at normalized screen coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nx | Yes | ||
| ny | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not disclose behavior beyond basic action, such as whether coordinates are relative to current position, any delay, or if it triggers OS-level double-click.
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?
Single sentence is concise but omits essential details for a tool with no annotations and undocumented parameters.
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?
Despite having an output schema and sibling tools, the description lacks depth on output, prerequisites, and behavioral context. Incomplete for practical use without assumptions.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds minimal value by mentioning 'normalized' but does not specify coordinate range, format, or how they interact with other tools.
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 'double-click' and the resource 'normalized screen coordinates', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'click' which implies a single click.
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?
No guidance on when to use double_click versus click or other mouse tools. Lacks context such as typical use cases or alternatives.
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 targets a distinct action: clicks, screenshots (raw, corrected, calibration aids), keyboard input, mouse movement, scrolling, and corner calibration. There is no ambiguity between tools.
Tool names mix conventions: some are single verbs (click, scroll, key), some are verb_noun (move_mouse, set_corners, type_text), and some are longer phrases (take_screenshot_with_crosshair). Although readable, the inconsistency is notable.
With 12 tools, the server covers all essential interactions for camera-based screen control without being bloated or sparse. Each tool has a clear role.
The tool set covers clicking, typing, key combinations, mouse movement, scrolling, and multiple screenshot modes including calibration aids. Missing drag/swipe functionality is a minor gap.