Clicks a browser element by its read number or visible text, and requires confirmado=true for submit, login, payment, or delete actions after user approval.
Clica num elemento pelo número da leitura (ex.: '5') ou pelo texto (ex.: 'Entrar').
Botões de enviar, logar, pagar ou apagar exigem confirmado=true, só com o OK do usuário.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alvo | Yes | ||
| confirmado | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the whole behavioral burden, and it does disclose the safety gate: sensitive actions require confirmado=true and explicit user approval. It does not cover failure behavior (element not found, multiple text matches) or whether the tool waits for the page to settle, leaving those unaddressed.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, the target-identification rule front-loaded and the confirmation rule second. The phrasing 'só com o OK do usuário' is slightly compressed but still readable.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the two parameters are fully explained despite 0% schema coverage. Given a crowded field of near-identical click siblings (navegador_clicar, janela_clicar, tela_clicar), the absence of any disambiguation is the main remaining gap.
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 0%, so the description must do all the work, and it does: it defines alvo as either a reading number or literal text with examples, and explains when confirmado must be set to true and under what human condition. Only the default value and false-case behavior are left to the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (click an element) and tells the agent how the target is identified: by reading number (e.g. '5') or by visible text (e.g. 'Entrar'). It never distinguishes itself from the sibling click tools (janela_clicar, tela_clicar), so an agent with several click-like options gets no help choosing between them.
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 second sentence gives a concrete conditional rule for confirmado=true covering submit, login, pay and delete buttons, gated on user approval, which is real when-to-use guidance. However, it says nothing about when to use this tool versus the window/screen click siblings, nor does it state the implied prerequisite that the element number comes from a prior navegador_ler call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.