Click at exact screen coordinates (x,y) with customizable hold duration and click count, returning success confirmation.
在屏幕指定物理像素坐标 (x,y) 处执行鼠标单击。高完整性进程注入，带真人式按压时长(默认120ms)。返回是否成功。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | 物理像素 X（截图坐标系） | |
| y | Yes | 物理像素 Y | |
| times | No | 点击次数（默认1，最多5） | |
| hold_ms | No | 按压保持毫秒数（默认120） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses high-integrity process injection, human-like press duration (default 120ms), and states that it returns success/failure. This goes beyond a simple 'click' description and gives the agent useful behavioral traits.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every clause adds value: the coordinate system, the injection method, the press behavior, and the return value. No wasted words.
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 simple click tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, key behaviors, and return value. It lacks explicit edge-case handling (e.g., off-screen coordinates) but is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds almost nothing beyond the schema: it repeats the physical pixel coordinate framing and the default hold duration, both already in the schema. No new parameter meaning is introduced.
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: 'performs a mouse click at specified physical pixel coordinates'. It differentiates from the sibling desktop_click_target by explicitly saying the click is at raw physical pixel coordinates, not a located target.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you have physical pixel coordinates to click) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like desktop_click_target or desktop_locate. The 'high integrity process injection' hint adds context but no clear routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.