Simulates a mouse press on a specified element to interact with web pages. Supports double-pressing and optional snapshot capture.
Clicks on the provided element
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| pageId | No | Targets a specific page by ID. Defaults to the selected page. | |
| dblClick | No | ||
| includeSnapshot | No | Whether to include a snapshot in the response. Default is false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action without mentioning side effects, waiting behavior, visibility requirements, or what happens after the click, offering no transparency beyond the bare action.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no annotations. Its brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail.
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?
Given four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It omits usage context, behavioral details, and parameter semantics that an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.
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 50%, with uid and dblClick lacking descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, only implying that an element identifier is needed, and does not explain the purpose of uid, dblClick, or the optional parameters.
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 (Clicks) and resource (the provided element), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like click_at or hover, leaving ambiguity about when this tool is preferred over those.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.