Simulates mouse clicks at specified X/Y coordinates on an interactive Windows desktop, enabling UI automation with selectable button, click count, and speed.
Windows AutoIt mouseClick. Requires a trusted owner and an interactive Windows x64 desktop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | X coordinate | |
| y | No | Y coordinate | |
| speed | No | Mouse movement speed (1-100) | |
| button | No | Mouse button | left |
| clicks | No | Number of clicks |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the environmental prerequisite (trusted owner, interactive Windows x64 desktop), which the agent cannot infer from annotations. It stops short of describing what actually gets clicked or any irreversible side effect on the target UI.
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?
Two short sentences with the prerequisite front-loaded after the identifier. It is efficient with no filler, though arguably too terse for a destructive input-injection tool.
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 destructive, non-idempotent desktop input tool with no output schema, the description omits critical context: whether coordinates are screen-absolute, that the click targets whatever window is under the cursor, and any permission/auth caveats. The environmental prerequisite is a start but leaves the agent under-informed for a side-effect-heavy operation.
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 coordinates, speed, button enum, and click count are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies. Nothing is missing, but nothing extra is contributed either.
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 names the action and platform ("Windows AutoIt mouseClick"), so the agent knows it simulates a mouse click. However, it is largely a restatement of the tool name and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like mouseDown/mouseUp/mouseClickDrag or controlClick. Purpose is implied but vague on scope.
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 only guidance is the prerequisite "Requires a trusted owner and an interactive Windows x64 desktop," which is a precondition rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no indication of when to prefer this over mouseDown/mouseUp, mouseClickDrag, or controlClick. No exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.