Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
textual-mcp-server

textual-mcp-server

by discohead
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

textual_click

Click a widget inside a running Textual terminal app using a CSS selector, enabling automated interaction and testing of TUI interfaces.

Instructions

Click a widget by CSS selector in a running Textual app.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "selector": "<selector>"
    },
    "name": "textual_click"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYes
selectorYes
offsetNo
timesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) already indicate non-destructive, local action. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., what happens if selector not found, whether it triggers events, or side effects). It is consistent but minimal.

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?

One sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with action and object. Efficient for quick scanning.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 4 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description is too brief. It omits explanation of all parameters and return value. Agents cannot fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only hints at the 'selector' parameter via 'CSS selector'. It does not explain 'session_id', 'offset', or 'times'. Without this, agents may misuse parameters.

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 the action ('Click'), the object ('widget by CSS selector'), and the context ('in a running Textual app'). It differentiates from sibling tools like textual_hover (hover) and textual_press (press keys).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the description (clicking a widget by CSS selector) but no explicit guidance when to use vs alternatives, no when-not conditions, and no mention of prerequisites.

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