Click page elements by CSS selector, text, or aria-label to automate interactions in Google Flow on a local background Chromium browser.
Clicks an element in the page by CSS selector, text, or aria-label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Button text content | |
| selector | No | CSS selector | |
| ariaLabel | No | Element aria-label |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not deliver: it says nothing about side effects, whether it waits for the element, what happens on multiple matches or a missing element, or how the three targeting options interact. 'Clicks' is a mutating action, so these omissions matter.
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 front-loaded sentence naming the action and its three targeting options with zero padding. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
No output schema or annotations exist, and the description stops short of covering failure behavior, waiting, or the fact that all three params are optional (what happens if none is supplied). Adequate for identifying the tool but incomplete for invoking it confidently.
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 100%, so the three parameters are already documented in the schema; the description merely restates selector/text/aria-label. It adds no precedence, mutual-exclusivity, or fallback semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (clicks) and resource (element in the page) plus the three targeting mechanisms, which is enough to distinguish it from the read/navigation/inspection siblings. However it never names or contrasts a sibling, so differentiation is inferred 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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance at all. An agent must guess that this belongs to a browser-automation workflow and when clicking is preferable to flow_eval_js or flow_execute_prompt.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.