Clicks at exact screen coordinates, with options for mouse button and double-click, enabling automated UI interaction from macOS screen captures.
Click at a specific screen position
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | X coordinate | |
| y | Yes | Y coordinate | |
| button | No | Mouse button to click | left |
| double_click | No | Whether to double-click |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'click' without mentioning potential side effects, such as triggering UI actions, moving the mouse pointer, or the fact that it mutates the system state by performing a real click. This is a significant transparency 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with a fully described schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks any note about return behavior, side effects, or when to use it, which leaves some context for an agent to infer. It is not incomplete enough to be confusing, but it could be richer.
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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the word 'position', which maps to the x/y parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('click') and resource ('screen position'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling capture/inspection tools, but does not explicitly reference them, so it stops short of a perfect 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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. Usage is implied by the description and the sibling tool names, which are all capture or search operations, but the description itself provides no context about when to choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.