Clicks a fresh element reference in Edge IE mode to trigger click, double-click, or right-click actions; use DOM mode when native clicks fail.
Click a fresh reference; action=click|double|right. Double/right require native mode. mode=dom uses the visible element's click() for diagnosed native failures. No automatic retry; verify intent and business outcome.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| mode | No | native | |
| action | No | click |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add meaningful context: no automatic retry, native-mode requirements, a DOM fallback for native failures, and the need to verify business outcomes. It still omits side-effect details such as whether a click may navigate or trigger forms, and does not describe permission requirements.
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 front-loaded with the core action and is very compact. Every clause adds operational value: action variants, mode constraints, the DOM fallback, and the no-retry warning.
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?
For a click tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers important caveats but leaves gaps around reference acquisition, error behavior, and side effects. It is adequate for invocation but not fully complete for an agent that needs to reason about a potentially mutating browser action.
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 compensate. It supplies the action values (click|double|right), explains native-mode requirements for double/right, and describes the meaning of mode=dom, but it only partially explains 'ref' by saying it must be fresh and does not describe how references are obtained.
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 and resource ('Click a fresh reference') and enumerates the supported click variants, making the action clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as browser_hover or browser_press_key, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
It provides clear operational context: double/right require native mode, and mode=dom is for diagnosed native failures. It also warns that there is no automatic retry and that the caller should verify intent and business outcome. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for adjacent interactions, but the conditional guidance is stronger than implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.