Clicks at X/Y coordinates on a Raspberry Pi's Wayland desktop, then captures a fresh screenshot. Supports left, right, and middle mouse buttons for remote GUI automation.
Click in original desktop pixels, or image pixels with the current view_id, then show a fresh screenshot. Button is left, right, or middle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| count | No | ||
| button | No | left | |
| view_id | No | ||
| capture_max_width | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful side-effect context (a fresh screenshot is shown afterwards) and the coordinate mode, but says nothing about permissions, repeat-click semantics, or failure behavior beyond annotations.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence covering coordinate mode and the screenshot side effect with little waste. The appended button list is slightly tacked-on but not verbose.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no output schema and 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage. Crucial details such as what count does (double-click), what capture_max_width controls, and the numeric format of x/y are missing from both the schema and the description, so an agent cannot call it reliably in edge cases.
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 description coverage is 0% for all 6 parameters. The description only clarifies button values (left/right/middle) and loosely ties view_id to image pixels; x, y, count, and capture_max_width remain entirely undefined, leaving more than half the parameters unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb (click) plus the exact resource/coordinate space, and distinguishes itself from siblings like desktop_scroll, desktop_type, and desktop_key. It also discloses the post-action screenshot, which no sibling description implies.
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 implies when to use view_id (image pixels) versus original desktop pixels, giving an implicit routing choice. However, it never states exclusions or when to prefer a sibling tool, and the conditional is worded ambiguously.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.