Simulate mouse button presses at (x, y) to automate X11 desktop interactions. Supports double/triple presses and modifier keys like Ctrl or Shift.
Click at (x, y). count=2 for double-click, 3 for triple-click. modifiers e.g. ["ctrl"] or ["shift"] are held during the click.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| count | No | ||
| button | No | left | |
| modifiers | No | ||
| screenshot_after | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema: that count produces multi-click gestures and that modifiers are held during the click. It omits whether the cursor is moved to (x, y) first, whether the call blocks, and what screenshot_after actually does, so coverage is partial.
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, front-loaded with the core action and coordinate requirement, and every clause adds information. Nothing is padded, though it is too terse to cover the remaining undocumented parameters.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone for a 6-parameter mutation tool. It adequately covers the click gesture but leaves screenshot_after, the button enum semantics, and whether coordinates are screen- or window-relative undefined, which matters in a multi-window desktop environment.
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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies count (2=double, 3=triple) and modifiers (held during the click, with example values), but leaves button, screenshot_after, and the coordinate reference frame entirely unexplained.
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?
"Click at (x, y)" names a specific action and its coordinate-based scoping, which separates it from element-based clicking. However it never names click_element (the obvious alternative for semantic element targeting) or explains how it differs from mouse_down/mouse_up, so the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 explains parameter values (count for double/triple click, modifiers) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over click_element, drag, or the mouse_down/mouse_up pair. With 17 siblings in a desktop-automation family, the absence of any routing or prerequisite guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.