Click a webpage element by its accessibility ref from page_a11y. Automatically scrolls it into view first, eliminating the need for CSS selectors.
Click an element by its ref from page_a11y. Scrolls it into view first. No selectors needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | Element ref from page_a11y (e.g. "e12"). | |
| page_id | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the element is scrolled into view before clicking, which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the basic action. It does not mention potential side effects of the click or failure modes, but for a simple click-by-ref tool the disclosed behavior is reasonable.
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 three short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by the key behavioral detail and the distinguishing constraint. Every sentence 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?
The core usage is clear and the ref-based semantics are well explained, making the tool minimally viable. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and two of three parameters remain undocumented, so an agent may be unclear about expected return values or how session_id/page_id are used.
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 only 33%; only 'ref' is described. The description reinforces the ref semantics but adds little beyond the schema, and it does not clarify 'session_id' or 'page_id' at all. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, and it fails to do so for the required context parameters.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Click an element') and the resource/identifier used ('by its ref from page_a11y'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting 'No selectors needed,' making it obvious this is the ref-based counterpart to page_click.
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?
The description implies clear usage context: use this tool when you have an element ref from page_a11y and do not need selectors. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the mention of ref-based access and 'No selectors needed' gives sufficient guidance for an agent to select between this and selector-based siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.