dawg-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_click

Automate clicking an element on a web page using its reference from the latest snapshot, then retrieve an updated snapshot.

Instructions

Click an element identified by ref from the latest snapshot.

element is a short human description (e.g. "Login button") used for diagnostics. Returns a fresh AI snapshot after the click.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "element": "<element>",
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "browser_click"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`element`	Yes
`ref`	Yes
`session_id`	No
`double`	No
`button`	No	left

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that the click uses the latest snapshot and returns a fresh one, but it does not explain error handling (e.g., missing ref), whether the element is scrolled into view, or if there are side effects like page navigation. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the action and return value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail; every word contributes value.

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?

For a simple point-and-click tool with no output schema, the description covers the core mechanism and return type. However, it lacks details on optional parameters and error behavior, and does not contextualize the tool within the broader set of browser interaction siblings. It is minimally viable but not thorough.

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

Parameters2/5

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 explains `ref` (element identifier from latest snapshot) and `element` (diagnostic label), but provides no information on `session_id`, `double`, or `button`. The agent cannot infer the purpose of these optional parameters, limiting usability.

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 clearly states that the tool clicks an element identified by `ref` from the latest snapshot, and returns a fresh snapshot. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling browser interaction tools like hover or type.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_hover, browser_press_key). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a snapshot first, or when not to use it.

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