Click at specified CSS pixel coordinates in the viewport to interact with page elements or trigger UI actions.
Clicks at the provided coordinates (CSS pixels in the viewport).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | 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 behavioral burden. It usefully defines the coordinate frame (CSS pixels in viewport), but discloses nothing about side effects of a click — navigation, form submission, focus changes, or whether a load is triggered — which matters greatly for a synthetic input tool.
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 well-formed sentence with the coordinate semantics front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately tight, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a 5-parameter 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 synthetic-input tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters (one entirely undocumented), the description is too thin. It leaves dblClick semantics, page targeting behavior, and click side effects unaddressed, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently in edge cases.
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 coverage is 40% and only pageId and includeSnapshot are described in the schema. The description adds genuine meaning for x/y (CSS pixels, viewport-relative), which the schema omits, but leaves dblClick completely undocumented in both places, so it partially but not fully compensates.
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 ('Clicks') and resource ('provided coordinates'), and the parenthetical pins the coordinate space to CSS pixels in the viewport. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'click' tool, which presumably targets elements rather than raw coordinates, so an agent must infer the split.
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 says only what the tool does, not when to prefer it over 'click', 'hover', or 'drag', nor what prerequisites (e.g. a page being selected) apply. No when-not-to-use or alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.