Clicks every element matching a CSS selector in a connected browser session, so agents can perform bulk interactions like selecting multiple items or buttons.
Click every matching element
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | ||
| profile | No | Browser ID from sleeper_sessions; optional with one connected browser. | |
| selector | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does 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, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether clicks are sequential, whether navigation/awaits occur between them, whether the tool fails or no-ops on zero matches, or that this is a mutating action on a live page.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is good, but at this length it reads as under-specification rather than genuine conciseness for a three-parameter mutating 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?
With no annotations, no output schema, 33% parameter coverage, and a dense sibling cluster, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer. A bulk-click tool needs at least match-count behavior, failure semantics, and its relationship to sleeper_click.
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 only 33% — only 'profile' is documented, while 'selector' and 'tab' have no schema descriptions. The description adds nothing about selector syntax, matching semantics, or the meaning of 'tab', so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('click') plus a scope qualifier ('every matching element'), which does distinguish it from the single-element sibling sleeper_click. It stops short of naming the alternative or the browser-automation context explicitly, so the agent must infer the rest from the sibling list.
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?
No when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings sleeper_click, sleeper_click_text, and sleeper_dblclick present, the description never states when bulk-clicking is preferable to a single click or what happens if the selector matches zero elements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.