Click a page element using its CSS selector and a browser session ID to interact with rendered webpages during scraping or automation workflows.
Click an element on the page using a CSS selector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | Yes | CSS selector of the element to click | |
| session_id | Yes | Session ID returned by browser_navigate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond restating the action and selector mechanism; it does not mention potential side effects like navigation or form submission, nor what happens when the element is missing.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action and method immediately.
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 click tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, the description is minimally adequate. It omits prerequisites like needing an active session from browser_navigate and what happens when a selector does not match, though session_id origin is covered by the schema.
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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented by the schema. The phrase 'using a CSS selector' merely echoes the selector parameter and adds no additional syntax or constraint.
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), resource (element on the page), and mechanism (CSS selector). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like browser_type or browser_fill, but the action is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives such as browser_fill for input or browser_hover for mouseover, leaving the agent to infer from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.