Skip to main content
Glama

browser_double_click

True double-click on an element (two trusted press/release pairs with escalating clickCount). Use for open-item actions (calendar events, file lists) where two single clicks would trigger inline-rename instead (e.g. OWA month view).

Instructions

True double-click on an element (two trusted press/release pairs with escalating clickCount). Use for open-item actions (calendar events, file lists) where two single clicks would trigger inline-rename instead (e.g. OWA month view). If the mouse would not reach the target at its center - another element lies in front of it (an overlay, a dialog's backdrop), the target does not take clicks there (pointer-events, visibility, clipping), or a different control inside it would get the click (a delete button on a card; for a container that is not clickable itself, its own plain link with a real address (a hash route with a path, such as #/orders, counts; a fragment with no target on the page does not) does not count, nor does a web component's own button that covers it, nor a box with a checkbox, switch or radio role right next to a hidden field and the only one in the nearest label around it, a label of that field (a box inside a closed shadow root cannot be seen and is not counted), which counts as that field) - the answer is ok:false with error "covered" and covered_by. Found before the mouse is sent, nothing is sent; if it comes in front afterwards, the rest of the presses and clicks are stopped (a release the page moves elsewhere is let through), and the answer also has maybe_landed: true, because the page may already have reacted.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
selectorYesCSS or text selector

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.28.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the pre-flight coverage check, the exact failure contract (ok:false with error "covered" and covered_by), that nothing is sent when detection fires early, that remaining presses are aborted on late obstruction, and the maybe_landed:true signal. This is far more behavioral context than a typical definition supplies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is one sprawling run-on sentence with parentheses nested several levels deep (e.g. the label/shadow-root/role clauses), making the coverage rules very hard to parse. Valuable content is buried in a structure that resists reading rather than a concise statement with the edge cases separated out.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the return contract (ok:false, covered_by, maybe_landed), the sequencing of events, and the obstruction edge cases, so an agent has what it needs to call and interpret the result. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'selector' parameter ('CSS or text selector'), so the schema already documents it. The description refers to 'an element' but adds no selector syntax or matching detail, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The opening sentence gives a precise verb+resource: 'True double-click on an element (two trusted press/release pairs with escalating clickCount)'. It further distinguishes itself from a naive two-single-click approach by explaining the inline-rename failure mode, so an agent can separate it from browser_click without opening either schema.

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?

It states when to use it explicitly ('Use for open-item actions (calendar events, file lists) where two single clicks would trigger inline-rename'), with a concrete example (OWA month view). It does not name the sibling tool (browser_click) that should be used otherwise, leaving the exclusion implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.