Clicks an element identified by page snapshot reference or CSS selector, then reports the resulting network and console activity.
Click an element (by ref from page_snapshot, or CSS selector) and report the network/console/url delta it caused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| waitMs | No | settle time after the click before reporting the delta (default 700ms) | |
| selector | No | ||
| sessionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the mutation (click) and the reported outcome (network/console/url delta). It does not mention potential side effects such as navigation, popups, or failure behavior, which keeps it at a moderate level of transparency.
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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. The action and targeting modes are front-loaded, and the output effect is stated at the end.
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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry most operational context. It explains the output only vaguely ('delta'), leaves sessionId undocumented, and does not address parameter requirements or selection conflicts. This is not complete enough for reliable invocation in a large sibling-tool 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?
The description adds real meaning to 'ref' (must come from page_snapshot) and 'selector' (CSS selector), going beyond the bare schema. However, sessionId is left completely unexplained, and the description does not clarify whether ref and selector are mutually exclusive or what happens if neither is provided. With only 25% schema coverage, this is partial compensation.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Click'), a resource ('an element'), and two concrete targeting modes ('ref from page_snapshot, or CSS selector'). It also differentiates itself from coordinate-based siblings like page_click_at by specifying element targeting rather than screen coordinates.
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?
Usage is implied: this tool is for clicking an element and observing the resulting network/console/URL changes. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as page_click_at, page_hover, or page_tap_at, nor does it state conditions for when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.