Dispatch a synthetic double-click on the matched element to activate controls, open items, or select content in the open Firefox-family browser.
Dispatch a synthetic double-click on the matched element.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_id | No | ||
| selector | Yes |
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, and 'synthetic' is the one useful disclosure (contrasting with browser_trusted_click's trusted events). It says nothing about failure behavior when no element matches, visibility/actionability requirements, waiting semantics, or what the tab_id targeting implies.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the omissions noted elsewhere rather than being a model of dense information.
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 an input-action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, one sentence is not enough. It omits selector format, tab targeting, error behavior, and any differentiation from the click siblings.
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% for two parameters. 'Matched element' weakly implies the selector's role, but selector syntax is never explained and tab_id (null default, active tab presumably) is completely unaddressed in the description.
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?
Names a specific verb (double-click) and resource (matched element), clearly distinct from browser_click's single-click semantics. However, it never explicitly names or differentiates itself from its closest siblings, browser_click and browser_trusted_click, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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 on when to use this versus browser_click, browser_trusted_click, or browser_hover, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.