element_checkCheck or uncheck a checkbox or radio button using its element ID. Set the 'checked' parameter to true to select or false to deselect.
勾选或取消勾选复选框/单选框。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checked | No | True=勾选，False=取消勾选 | |
| element_id | Yes | find_element 返回的元素 id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates it changes the checked state of a form control, and annotations show readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent. However, it does not mention potential side effects, errors, or whether it waits for state changes.
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 concise and directly to the point, with no unnecessary words or restatements.
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?
The tool is simple and the description covers its core action, but it lacks context about when to prefer it over similar interaction tools and what happens if the target element is not a checkbox/radio.
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?
The schema fully describes both parameters (element_id and checked), so the description adds no extra semantic value. The default behavior when checked is omitted is not explained beyond the schema default.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: to check or uncheck a checkbox/radio button. It is specific and distinguishable from generic clicking tools like element_click.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of element_click, element_select, or other interaction tools. The agent is left to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.