Perform a left mouse click on a specified UI element or screen position, using accessibility-aware targeting first and falling back to coordinates when needed for reliable desktop control.
Left-click a target. Element target is preferred (background-safe).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| strategy | No | ||
| modifiers | No | ||
| return_state | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., bringing app to foreground), prerequisites (e.g., accessibility permissions), or what happens when using coordinates versus elements. The 'background-safe' note implies a behavior but is not explicit about how it affects the click or system 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?
The description is very short (two clauses) and front-loaded with the action, which is good for conciseness. However, it lacks structure that could help the agent quickly parse the key parameters. It is minimal but not overly verbose, so a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested target object, enums), the description is incomplete. It does not address how 'modifiers' are applied, what 'strategy' options mean, or what 'return_state' returns. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify expected results, but 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds a small hint that element targets are preferred and background-safe, which helps interpret the 'target' parameter. However, it provides no explanation for 'strategy', 'modifiers', or 'return_state', leaving the agent to guess their meaning and impact.
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 states a clear action ('Left-click a target') with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like double_click and right_click by the action itself, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar click tools such as left_click_drag or left_mouse_down. The phrase 'Element target is preferred' hints at target handling but does not add much specificity to the core purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a single left-click is appropriate versus double-click, drag, or other click variants. The only hint is 'background-safe' for element targets, which is more about parameter preference than tool selection, so usage context is largely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.