Clicks specified x,y coordinates on a Windows Sandbox guest desktop from a fresh inspection, then verifies the resulting state. Use it to operate native GUI controls by coordinate.
Click guest physical desktop coordinates from fresh inspection; verify state afterward.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| hwnd | No | ||
| button | No | left |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is covered. The description adds a small amount of context by implying the click should be verified afterward, but says nothing about focus/foreground requirements, whether coordinates are absolute vs window-relative, or failure behavior.
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 the action and coordinate source stated first, then the verification step. Efficient and free of padding, though the trailing clause is slightly clipped in meaning.
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?
No output schema exists and no annotations explain return values, yet the description says nothing about what a click returns or what 'verify state' concretely means. Combined with 0% parameter coverage and undocumented hwnd/button semantics, the definition is too thin for a 4-parameter, destructive input tool.
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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden and only partially covers it: 'guest physical desktop coordinates' conveys the meaning of x and y. The hwnd (target window, default 0) and button (default 'left') parameters are left entirely unexplained, leaving no way to know valid button values or what hwnd=0 means.
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') and resource ('guest physical desktop coordinates'), which clearly separates it from sibling input tools like sandbox_keys or shell-oriented sandbox_exec. It does not name which sibling it differs from, but the action and target are unambiguous.
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 phrase 'from fresh inspection' implies coordinates must come from a prior inspection step, and 'verify state afterward' implies a follow-up check, giving implied workflow guidance. However, no sibling tool is named (e.g. sandbox_inspect) and there are no explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.