minimax_click_textFinds and clicks a button or menu item by its text via a CDP DOM connection, so the click works even when windows are occluded or scaled.
查找并点击指定文本(按钮/菜单项)。优先走 CDP DOM 直连，无视窗口遮挡与缩放。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | contains | |
| text | Yes | 目标按钮或文字 | |
| index | No | ||
| query | No | 目标按钮或文字别名 (同 text) | |
| region | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the resolution mechanism (prefers CDP DOM direct connection) and the robustness property (works despite window occlusion and scaling). However, it omits what happens when CDP is unavailable, whether the click requires the window to be active, and whether multiple matches cause ambiguity; the annotations only give a generic non-destructive mutation profile.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the mechanism note. Nothing is repeated and every clause carries information.
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 five-parameter tool with a nested region object, no output schema, and only 40% schema coverage, the description leaves meaningful gaps: no return-value or failure indication, no multiple-match disambiguation, and no fallback path when CDP is unavailable. The mechanism disclosure partly compensates but does not make the definition self-sufficient.
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 only 40%, and the description explains none of the five parameters: it does not explain 'mode' matching semantics, how 'index' resolves multiple matches, that 'query' is an alias of 'text', or what 'region' restricts. The schema does carry descriptions for text and query, but mode, index, and the nested region object are undocumented in both places.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('查找并点击指定文本（按钮/菜单项）') and implicitly separates itself from coordinate-based minimax_click and read-only minimax_find_text by describing a text-targeted click. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred from context.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should be used when the target text is known but coordinates are not. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer minimax_click or minimax_find_text, and no stated preconditions such as a session being active.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.