Skip to main content
Glama
brunoboto96

SceneScout

by brunoboto96
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scout_click

Click an element by its ref to test for double-submit issues. Rapid multi-click probes if a control handles repeated submissions, returning outcome and oracle violations.

Instructions

Click an element by its ref from the latest scout_snapshot. Returns the outcome plus any oracle violations triggered. clicks=2 (or 3) probes IMPATIENT-USER behaviour: a rapid multi-click that fires the same state-changing request twice means the control is not guarded against double submission (button stays enabled, endpoint not idempotent) — use it on every important submit/create button once; the result says explicitly whether duplicates fired.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesElement ref, e.g. e12
taskNoWhat you are DOING right now, in a few words: the action, not the acceptance criteria. "Filtering the documents register by status", "Filling the deviation form with invalid dates", "Signing in as QA_Team" — NOT "§2.4 filtering narrows the set and the filter is reflected in the URL", which is what you are CHECKING, not what you are doing. Naming the item you are on is fine ("§2.4: filtering the documents register"); keep the rest to what a colleague would see over your shoulder. It stays set until you pass a different one, so a batch costs a few words, not one per call. Required on the tools that act unless a journey or an earlier call already set one.
leaveNoHow to answer if the page asks to confirm leaving (a beforeunload prompt over unsent input): true leaves and discards that input, false stays. Omitted, observe and read-only stay and other modes leave. The result says when the page asked.
clicksNo1 = normal; 2-3 = rapid repeated clicks (double-submit probe)
sessionNoTarget this session directly instead of the active one — pass it explicitly when dispatching to MULTIPLE sessions in one turn (e.g. two scout_click calls with different `session`), which then run CONCURRENTLY rather than queueing. Omit for single-session sequential use.
objectiveNoOld name for `task` (2.0). Prefer `task`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.17.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / leave
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "How to answer if the page asks to confirm leaving (a beforeunload prompt over unsent input): true leaves and discards that input, false stays. Omitted, observe and read-only stay and other modes leave. The result says when the page asked.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / objective
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Old name for `task` (2.0). Prefer `task`.",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / task
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "What you are DOING right now, in a few words: the action, not the acceptance criteria. \"Filtering the documents register by status\", \"Filling the deviation form with invalid dates\", \"Signing in as QA_Team\" — NOT \"§2.4 filtering narrows the set and the filter is reflected in the URL\", which is what you are CHECKING, not what you are doing. Naming the item you are on is fine (\"§2.4: filtering the documents register\"); keep the rest to what a colleague would see over your shoulder. It stays set until you pass a different one, so a batch costs a few words, not one per call. Required on the tools that act unless a journey or an earlier call already set one.",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 does well: it discloses the double-submit probe semantics, that the result explicitly reports whether duplicates fired, and that oracle violations are returned. It omits behavior on a stale ref or a ref missing from the snapshot, which is the main residual gap for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the detail sentences earn their place by explaining the probe. The middle sentence is a dense run-on with stacked em-dashes, so it is slightly heavier than necessary.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains both the action and the return semantics (outcome, duplicates, oracle violations), which is enough to call it correctly. What is missing is prerequisite/staleness handling for the ref and any error behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine interpretive meaning for the `clicks` parameter — explaining that two fired requests indicate an unguarded control — beyond the schema's terse '1 = normal; 2-3 = rapid repeated clicks'.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a precise verb+resource: clicks an element identified by its ref from the latest scout_snapshot, and notes the return payload (outcome plus oracle violations). It fails to explicitly separate itself from keyboard-style siblings like scout_press or scout_select, so an agent must infer the distinction from the 'ref' target.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete operative rule for the probing mode: use clicks=2/3 on every important submit/create button once, and it explains what a duplicate response implies. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as scout_press or scout_type, so tool-choice guidance is incomplete.

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