Click at exact X/Y coordinates in Electron apps to test UI elements when no selector is available. Set button and click count for single or double clicks.
Click at specific coordinates (without selector)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | X coordinate | |
| y | Yes | Y coordinate | |
| button | No | Mouse button (default: left) | |
| clickCount | No | Number of clicks (default: 1, use 2 for double-click) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For an input-injecting tool that can trigger navigation or mutations, it discloses nothing about auto-waiting, scrolling into view, out-of-viewport coordinates, or return behavior.
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 clause with no wasted words. It is terse rather than bloated, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than efficient completeness.
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?
A coordinate-based click tool with no annotations and no output schema should explain prerequisites, wait behavior, and what a click may trigger. Almost none of that context is present for a 4-parameter interaction tool.
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 100%, so all four parameters (x, y, button, clickCount) are already documented in the schema, including the default for button and clickCount. The description adds no coordinate format, origin, or unit details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (click) and the mode (coordinates), and the parenthetical '(without selector)' implicitly distinguishes it from the selector-based `click` sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation requires a small inference.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the bare '(without selector)' hint. It never names `click`, `dblclick`, or `mouseDown`/`mouseUp` as alternatives, and says nothing about preconditions such as the page being loaded or the target being in the viewport.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.