Clicks a web page element by its visible text content, enabling browser automation when you want to target elements by label or text.
Click an element on the page by its text content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text content of the element to click |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('click') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what happens if multiple elements match the text, whether it waits for elements to be clickable, error handling, or performance implications. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a browser automation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like return values, error conditions, or interaction with page state, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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% (the single parameter 'text' is fully described in the schema as 'Text content of the element to click'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples, formatting notes, or edge cases for text matching.
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 clearly states the specific action ('click') and target ('element on the page by its text content'), distinguishing it from siblings like playwright_click (which likely uses different targeting) and playwright_fill (which performs a different action). It uses a precise verb+resource+targeting method combination.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like playwright_click (presumably using selectors) or other sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for text-based clicking versus other methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.