Send a mouse press at X/Y coordinates from the current screenshot to interact with macOS screen elements; double=true triggers a double-press.
Click somewhere on screen, using coordinates from the most recent screenshot.
Args:
x: Horizontal position in the screenshot.
y: Vertical position in the screenshot.
double: True for a double-click.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| double | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that clicks are coordinate-based on the latest screenshot and mentions the double-click mode, but says nothing about out-of-bounds coordinates, failure behavior, or whether the click is delivered to the frontmost app.
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?
Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block; no filler. The docstring-style Args formatting is slightly redundant with the schema but low-cost.
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 simple three-parameter, no-output-schema action tool this covers the essentials: what it does, the coordinate source, and the double-click variant. Residual gaps (error/edge-case behavior) are minor for a tool of this complexity.
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%, so the description carries the burden and does document all three parameters: x and y as horizontal/vertical positions within the screenshot (critical, since it establishes the coordinate frame) and double as a double-click toggle. It is brief but the key ambiguity about the coordinate reference frame is resolved.
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 (click) and resource (screen position) and ties the coordinates to 'the most recent screenshot', which tells the agent this is pixel-space clicking rather than DOM/selector clicking. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling click_page_link, which is the main missing differentiation.
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 'using coordinates from the most recent screenshot' implies a prerequisite workflow (take a screenshot first), which is real guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over click_page_link or what to do if no screenshot exists, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.