Simulate mouse button presses at specified coordinates or the current pointer position, with support for single, double, triple, and left/right/middle/back/forward buttons.
Click at (x, y), or where the pointer is. count=2 double-clicks, 3 triple-clicks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| button | No | left |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It explains click counting but does not disclose side effects such as focus changes, whether clicks are OS-level, button behavior beyond the schema enum, or any permissions/constraints.
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?
The description is one compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds the important count behavior. Every clause adds useful information with no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. However, with no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, the description omits meaningful context about button behavior, click side effects, and when this tool is preferable to related input tools.
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 four parameters, so the description must compensate. It helpfully explains that x/y are optional and default to the current pointer position, and it explains count semantics, but it does not describe the button parameter or its default.
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 states a specific action (click) and resource/location (coordinates or current pointer position), and clarifies that count=2/3 produces double/triple clicks. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like mouse_move or drag.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use click versus mouse_move, drag, or other interaction tools. The only usage-like information is the pointer-position fallback and click-count behavior, which is useful but not routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.