pbi-webview2

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pbi_click

Clicks a UI element using text, ariaLabel, or CSS selector. Supports Ctrl+click and index-based disambiguation.

Instructions

Generic tag-then-act click by text | ariaLabel | selector (ctrl for action buttons; index disambiguates). Overlay-intercept coordinate fallback. Returns {clicked, method, matchedLabel, candidateCount}.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pbi_click"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ctrl`	No
`text`	No
`index`	No
`selector`	No
`ariaLabel`	No
`report_selection`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and exceeds basic expectations by disclosing the overlay-intercept fallback, the return format including method and candidateCount, and the ctrl modifier for action buttons. It does not address safety or side effects, but the behavioral traits are well communicated.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is very concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and key details. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, multiple identification methods, no output schema), the description covers identification, modifier, and return, but lacks explanation of 'tag-then-act', the coordinate fallback mechanism, and differentiation from other interaction tools. It is adequate but not complete for a deep understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for text, ariaLabel, selector, ctrl (action buttons), and index (disambiguation), but omits report_selection entirely. This partial coverage results in adequate but incomplete parameter semantics.

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 states the specific action (click) and the identification methods (text, ariaLabel, selector), along with modifier (ctrl) and disambiguation (index). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by being the generic click operation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_context_menu or pbi_deselect. It does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.