Skip to main content
Glama
Novpix

browsermcp-plus

by Novpix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_click

Destructive

Clicks a specified web page element by reference and, if it is disabled or covered by another element like a cookie banner, fails with an explanation.

Instructions

Click an element. Fails with an explanation if the element is disabled or covered by another element (e.g. a cookie banner).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesExact target element reference from the page snapshot
elementYesHuman-readable element description used to obtain permission to interact with the element
snapshotNoAlso return the page snapshot after the action (default: no). Use it when you need to see the result right away.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / snapshot
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Also return the page snapshot after the action (default: no). Use it when you need to see the result right away.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses failure conditions (disabled element, element obscured by overlays like cookie banners), which helps an agent anticipate and diagnose failures.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the failure behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-output-schema tool, the definition covers the action and its key failure modes, and the schema fully documents parameters. It could add a note on when to use the snapshot flag or how failures surface, but it is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (ref, element, snapshot) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Click an element'), which is distinguishable from siblings like browser_hover and browser_type. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from those nearby interaction tools, which an agent must infer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives relative to browser_hover, browser_type, or browser_fill_form. The failure note describes an outcome, not when this tool should be selected.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools