renforge_click_atClicks screen coordinates in a running Ren'Py game, optionally verifying frame or state guards before input to prevent unintended interactions.
Click screen coordinates with optional frame/state safety guards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| project_path | Yes | ||
| expected_state | No | ||
| coordinate_space | No | logical | |
| expected_frame_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating input-simulation tool. It hints at 'frame/state safety guards' but never explains what they do, what happens on a guard mismatch, whether the click is retried or fails silently, or whether it requires an active session. That is a major gap for a tool that mutates external state.
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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here comes at the cost of the disclosure the tool needs.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a 6-parameter, annotation-free, mutating input tool with 0% schema coverage, the description should explain coordinate space, guard semantics, and failure behavior; it does not.
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. The description only loosely gestures at coordinates and frame/state guards, leaving x, y, project_path, and especially coordinate_space ('logical' default) and expected_state's shape undocumented anywhere. Meaningful semantics are missing.
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 ('screen coordinates'), which is enough to separate it from renforge_click_element (element-based clicking). However, it does not explicitly name that sibling or contrast the two approaches, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 prefer raw-coordinate clicking over renforge_click_element, renforge_click_at's nearest alternative, nor any prerequisites (e.g. required running game state, valid project_path). The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.