Release all held mouse buttons at once to recover from a stuck drag when a caller dies mid-drag. Use it to unstick the pointer and restore normal input control.
Release every held mouse button at once — the unstick button, for when a caller died mid-drag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 does disclose the key behavioral trait — all buttons released simultaneously, framed as a recovery/reset action — but it doesn't say whether it is a no-op when nothing is held, whether it's global across all pointers, or what the caller gets back. For a zero-arg recovery tool that's a modest but real 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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the use case. Nothing is padded and no clarification is needed.
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?
For a parameterless, output-less recovery tool, the description covers what it does and when to use it. Only edge-case behavior (no buttons held, scope of the release) is left implicit, which is minor for this complexity level.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the schema is trivially complete. The description correctly doesn't waste space on nonexistent inputs.
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 ('release') and resource ('every held mouse button') with the scope qualifier 'at once', which cleanly separates it from the sibling mouse_up that releases a single button. The 'unstick button' framing makes the intent unambiguous.
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 phrase 'for when a caller died mid-drag' gives a concrete trigger condition for reaching for this tool rather than mouse_up. It stops short of an explicit exclusion ('use mouse_up for the normal case'), but the recovery scenario is clear enough to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.