zandronum-mcp

by rc4l

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Click or drag the mouse

mouse_click

Simulate left-button mouse actions in Zandronum: click at a position, drag between two points, or send a double-click.

Instructions

Press and release the left button at a position. Give toX/toY to DRAG: press at the first point, move through it, release at the second. double sends a double-click.

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": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "mouse_click"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`x`	Yes
`y`	Yes
`toX`	No
`toY`	No
`double`	No
`instance`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.6.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the press-and-release sequence, drag mechanics (press at first point, move, release at second), and double-click behavior. However, it omits details like coordinate system and whether the mouse pointer moves to the target position before clicking.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded, with two sentences that clearly convey the tool's purpose and variations. Every clause adds value, including the conditional drag and double-click explanations.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core mouse actions but lacks context on coordinate system, instance handling, and how this tool differs from mouse_move. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains toX/toY as drag endpoints, double as double-click, and x/y as the position, but leaves the instance parameter unexplained. This partial coverage is sufficient for a moderate score.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the primary action: pressing and releasing the left button at a position. It also explains the drag variant and double-click, distinguishing it from siblings like mouse_move and mouse_wheel by focusing on button interactions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied through the description of click and drag behaviors, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like mouse_move. It does not mention when not to use it or provide comparison to siblings.

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