Clicks screenshot pixels in the Filmora editor to operate UI controls; use count=2 for double-click or Alt-click to add keyframes where supported.
Click screenshot pixels. Double-click count=2; Alt-click adds a keyframe where supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| count | No | ||
| button | No | left | |
| modifiers | No | ||
| observation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful behavior – count=2 for double-click and Alt-click adding a keyframe – but says nothing about what gets modified, permission needs, or side effects beyond the keyframe case.
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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information, though it stops short of a truly complete, self-sufficient statement.
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 click tool with no output schema, the safety profile from annotations plus the modifier notes make it minimally viable. It omits how observation_id links to a prior screenshot and what a click returns or affects, leaving meaningful gaps for a 6-parameter destructive tool.
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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies only count (=2 for double-click) and modifiers (Alt); x, y, button, and especially observation_id remain entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 (screenshot pixels), which distinguishes it from drag/scroll/key siblings. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from potential click-overlapping siblings like filmora_ui_action, keeping it just short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this over alternatives such as filmora_ui_action or filmora_drag, nor any prerequisite (e.g. a prior screenshot yielding observation_id). The double-click/Alt-click notes are behavioral, not usage-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.