Activates a Safari page element by ref from page inspection or CSS selector to trigger buttons, links, or controls.
Click an element by ref (from read_page/find) or CSS selector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| tab | No | Tab id "windowId:tabIndex" from tabs_list. Omit for the active tab of the front window. | |
| selector | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a real-world side-effecting action. It says nothing about whether the click waits for navigation/load, whether the element is scrolled into view or actionability-checked, what happens when the selector matches multiple or zero elements, or whether errors are raised or returned.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its two targeting options come first. It is efficient but so terse that the tab-scoping default and mutual exclusivity are left entirely implicit.
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?
Treating the description as a one-line definition of a browser action tool, it is complete enough to know what the tool does and how to target an element. The missing operational details (waiting, error handling, ref/selector precedence) are real gaps for a side-effecting action, so this is generous rather than a clean 5.
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 33% — only 'tab' is documented in the schema, and the description usefully adds that 'ref' originates from read_page/find. However, neither the description nor the schema explains filter syntax for 'selector', which parameter wins when both are supplied, or that exactly one of ref/selector is expected despite required=[] allowing none at all.
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 concrete verb (click) and the two targeting mechanisms (element ref or CSS selector), and names the sibling tools that produce refs (read_page/find). An agent can tell this apart from form_input, press_key and navigate without opening the schema, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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 parenthetical '(from read_page/find)' implies the prerequisite workflow for refs, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement of which targeting mode to prefer, and no mention of how this differs from press_key or form_input for interactive elements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.