Simulate a mouse button press at exact screenshot pixel coordinates. Set count for repeated presses and choose left, right, or middle buttons to control a remote computer.
Click at (x, y) in screenshot pixel coordinates. count=2 for a double click.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| count | No | ||
| button | No | left |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short: it does not say whether this is a real input event, what happens at screen edges, or whether a prior screenshot is required. Only the count=2 double-click behavior is disclosed.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and coordinate basis, with the optional double-click convention appended. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the essential call semantics. However, for a gesture tool it omits coordination details such as needing a screenshot first or how coordinates relate to the sibling screenshot output.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies that x/y are screenshot pixel coordinates (not normalized or window-relative) and that count=2 means double click, but the button parameter is left entirely to the enum/default.
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 the coordinate basis (screenshot pixel coordinates), which is more informative than a bare 'click'. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like move_mouse and drag, though it never names them.
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 statement of when to use this versus move_mouse, drag, or press_keys, nor when clicking is inappropriate. Usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.