Clicks an element by ref or selector to automate browser interactions such as pressing buttons, following links, and submitting forms.
Click an element by ref or selector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| button | No | ||
| target | Yes | Element ref like e3 from a prior browser_snapshot, OR a raw Playwright selector (css=, xpath=, text=, role=). | |
| element | No | Human-readable element description for logging only. | |
| modifiers | No | ||
| doubleClick | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says what a click is. It does not disclose actionability waits, stale-ref behavior, failure modes, or whether the click can trigger navigation or dialogs.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. Its brevity is efficient, although the resulting under-specification is captured in other dimensions.
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?
For an action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters at 40% description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, side effects, and most parameter semantics that an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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 only 40%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the target schema, which already explains refs and selectors. It does not clarify button, modifiers, doubleClick, or element usage, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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 specific verb and resource: "Click an element," with the accepted target forms "ref or selector." This clearly separates it from siblings like browser_type or browser_hover, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_hover or browser_fill_form. It also omits prerequisites, notably that a ref like e3 requires a prior browser_snapshot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.