Spider MCP Server

spider_browser_click

Click an element on a web page with a CSS selector. The tool waits for the element to appear before clicking it.

Instructions

Click an element on the page. Waits for the element to appear before clicking.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "selector": "<selector>"
    },
    "name": "spider_browser_click"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`timeout`	No	Max time to wait for element in ms. Default: 10000
`selector`	Yes	CSS selector of the element to click (e.g. "button.submit", "#login-btn", "a[href='/pricing']")
`session_id`	Yes	Session ID from spider_browser_open

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.2Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses waiting behavior before clicking, which is useful. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lacks details on side effects (e.g., navigation, destructive actions) and error handling when element not found.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple click tool, the description covers primary behavior (wait and click). No output schema, but the action is straightforward. Could mention return value, but not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter has clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional information beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action (click) and the resource (element on page). Distinguishes from siblings like fill or navigate because it's specifically for clicking. Also adds that it waits for the element, which clarifies behavior.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like spider_browser_fill or spider_browser_wait_for. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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