Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Browser Bridge MCP

Browser Bridge MCP

by adbarc92
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_click

Click any element on a web page using its CSS selector. Automate browser interactions by targeting specific buttons, links, or form elements.

Instructions

Click an element on the page identified by a CSS selector

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "selector": "<selector>"
    },
    "name": "browser_click"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tabIdNoTab ID (defaults to active tab)
selectorYesCSS selector for the element to click

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose essential behavioral traits: whether the click triggers navigation, waits for page load, throws errors for missing elements, or what the return value is. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it fails to provide these details.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence of 11 words, which is concise but lacks necessary details for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It is front-loaded with the key action but leaves gaps.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description should at least mention return type or behavior (e.g., 'returns success status'). Currently, it omits this context, making it incomplete for an agent to rely on.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (tabId and selector) with 100% coverage. The description adds no new meaning beyond what's in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Click') and the resource ('an element on the page') with the method of identification ('CSS selector'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like browser_fill (which fills form fields) or browser_screenshot (which captures images).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_fill might also involve clicking, but not addressed). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or cases where this tool is preferred.

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