Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bwiki-mcp

bwiki-mcp

by putaojuju
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

bwiki_click

Click elements on BWIKI pages using CSS selectors. Wait for element appearance to ensure reliable interaction.

Instructions

在BWIKI页面上点击元素。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "selector": "<selector>"
    },
    "name": "bwiki_click"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
waitForNo等待元素出现
selectorYesCSS选择器或元素描述

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only says 'click element'. It does not explain whether waitFor is necessary, how missing selectors are handled, whether clicks trigger navigation, or if events are native or simulated. This is a significant transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, succinct sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with no annotations or output schema, making it too minimal to be fully helpful despite being concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide comprehensive context. It only offers a basic statement, omitting return behavior, error cases, and differences from sibling tools, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, fully documenting both selector and waitFor. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('click') and resource ('element on BWIKI page'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bwiki_type or bwiki_navigate, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks relevant context, such as using bwiki_wait_for_selector for dynamic content or bwiki_evaluate for custom JS clicks, and does not mention prerequisites or conditions for use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools