Clicks a browser element by its visible text, supports exact matching and index selection, and verifies the result to automate page navigation and form actions.
Click element by text
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| exact | No | ||
| index | No | ||
| verify | No | ||
| profile | No | Browser ID from sleeper_sessions; optional with one connected browser. |
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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of whether the element is scrolled into view, whether the click auto-waits, whether ambiguous text raises an error or clicks the first match, or what a verify failure looks like. A mutation-style action with zero annotation coverage deserves far more disclosure than one terse line.
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 three-word sentence is not wasting words, but it is under-specification rather than conciseness. Front-loading is irrelevant when the entire payload is three words with no supporting detail.
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 6-parameter interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate: no matching semantics, no failure behavior, no parameter meaning. An agent cannot call this correctly without opening the schema and guessing at runtime behavior.
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 17% (just the profile param), and 6 parameters exist, so the description is expected to compensate but does not. The words 'by text' only loosely gesture at the text parameter and say nothing about tab, exact, index, or verify, leaving five parameters undocumented in both places.
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?
The phrase states a verb (Click) and a resource (element) with a locating mechanism (by text), which is enough to tell it apart from a generic selector-based click. However, it never names the sibling it contrasts with (sleeper_click, sleeper_click_all), so an agent must infer the distinction. Purpose is clear but minimally articulated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sleeper_click, sleeper_click_all, sleeper_find_text, or sleeper_focus. No prerequisites, no note about what to do when multiple elements match or when the target is off-screen. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.