Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mmjb-mcp

mmjb-mcp

by foklepoint
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

click

Activate a browser element by its numbered index from a previous look() scan to trigger the desired page action.

Instructions

Click the element with this index, using the numbers from the last look().

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": {
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "click"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexYes
allow_writesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it under-delivers: it never mentions that clicks may navigate away from the page, that writes are gated, or that allow_writes (default false) governs whether this action is permitted. For a potentially state-changing browser automation tool, the safety-relevant behavior is undisclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short sentence with no filler, and the operative action plus the index source are both front-loaded. Nothing extraneous, though there is very little content to structure.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description must stand alone, and it omits post-click behavior, the write-permission gate, and failure modes. An agent could plausibly invoke this and be confused by a blocked or unexpectedly navigating click.

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% for two parameters. The description partially explains 'index' by tying it to the last look() output, but says nothing about allow_writes, leaving an agent unable to know why a click would be rejected or that the parameter defaults to false.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a specific verb and resource ('Click the element with this index') and clarifies the index origin, which implicitly separates it from the coordinate-based sibling click_at. However it never explicitly contrasts itself with click_at, so full sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The phrase 'using the numbers from the last look()' establishes a prerequisite and implies this tool is used after look(), which is genuinely useful routing context. It does not state when NOT to use it or when click_at would be preferred.

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