Dispatch mouse clicks to CSS selectors or pixel coordinates in a specified tab, enabling targeted UI automation for Brave browser tasks.
Dispatch mouse click to element selector or pixel coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | Optional explicit X coordinate | |
| y | No | Optional explicit Y coordinate | |
| tab_id | Yes | The ID of the tab | |
| selector | No | CSS selector of the target element |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects, whether a click waits for actionability, how targeting conflicts are resolved, or whether errors are returned.
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 that names the action and both targeting modes with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Adequate for a simple click action with fully documented parameters, but it omits behavior around conflicts (both selector and coordinates), navigation/waits, and return values. Since no annotations or output schema exist, some of this burden falls on the description.
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 already documents all 4 parameters with 100% coverage deftly, so the description adds only a minor clarification: it frames x/y as pixel coordinates and selector as element targeting. This meets the baseline but does not go beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states the action ('dispatch mouse click') and both targeting modes ('element selector or pixel coordinates'). It differentiates from siblings by implication (single click vs. double_click, click_and_read), though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.
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 choose this tool over wrave_double_click, wrave_click_and_read, or wrave_type_text. The description conveys only what it does, not the conditions or exclusions that should drive selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.