Click a webpage element by providing a snapshot reference or locator string to trigger the click action.
Click an element: snapshot ref number or locator string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | A [ref] number from browser_snapshot, or a locator (css=#id, role=button,name=Submit, text=...). |
| 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 the full burden. It discloses the input format but doesn't mention what happens on success/failure, whether the click waits for navigation, whether it scrolls the element into view, or any side effects. For a mutation-like interaction tool, this is a notable gap.
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?
One short sentence that front-loads the action and immediately explains the target format. No wasted words.
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?
The tool has a single parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for an interaction tool with no annotations, it would benefit from stating behavior like waiting for page load or error conditions. It's adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the target parameter well. The description adds a concise summary of the two accepted formats, but doesn't add much beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb ('Click') and resource ('an element'), and clarifies the two ways to identify the target (snapshot ref number or locator string). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_hover or browser_type, but the action is clear enough.
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 usage: use it when you need to click an element, and the target can be a ref or locator. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like browser_hover for non-click interactions, but the context is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.