Skip to main content
Glama
eva-wanxin-git

Windows Automation MCP Server

mouse_click

Perform mouse clicks on Windows systems to automate interactions. Choose left, right, or middle button clicks with optional double-click functionality for streamlined control.

Instructions

鼠标点击

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buttonNo按钮类型
doubleNo是否双击(可选)

Implementation Reference

  • Core implementation of the mouse_click tool. Performs the mouse click operation using the robotjs library, handling button type and double-click option, with success/error response.
    mouseClick(button = 'left', double = false) {
      try {
        this.robot.mouseClick(button, double);
        return { success: true, button, double, message: '点击完成' };
      } catch (error) {
        return { success: false, error: error.message };
      }
    }
  • Input schema definition for the mouse_click tool, specifying optional button ('left', 'right', 'middle') and double-click boolean.
    {
      name: 'mouse_click',
      description: '鼠标点击',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          button: { type: 'string', enum: ['left', 'right', 'middle'], description: '按钮类型' },
          double: { type: 'boolean', description: '是否双击(可选)' },
        },
      },
    },
  • Registers 'mouse_click' as a supported tool in the canHandle method's tools list.
    const tools = ['move_mouse', 'mouse_click', 'type_text', 'press_key', 
                   'get_mouse_position', 'get_screen_size'];
  • Dispatcher logic in executeTool method that invokes the mouseClick handler for the 'mouse_click' tool.
    case 'mouse_click':
      return this.mouseClick(args.button, args.double);
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '鼠标点击' gives no information about what the tool actually does—whether it simulates a mouse click at the current cursor position, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or interacts with UI elements. This is completely inadequate for a tool that performs an action with potential system-level effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While the description is extremely concise (just two characters), this is a case of under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single term '鼠标点击' fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient rather than well-structured. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given that this is an action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool that performs a system interaction, this level of incompleteness is problematic.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('button' and 'double') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '鼠标点击' (mouse click) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what it does. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'browser_click' or 'move_mouse', nor does it clarify whether this performs a system-level mouse click or something else. This provides no meaningful purpose clarification beyond the obvious name.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'browser_click' (for browser-specific clicks) or 'move_mouse' (for movement without clicking), nor does it provide any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/eva-wanxin-git/windows-automation-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server