Clicks a QGIS button, checkbox, or tool button by object name or visible text; the click is deferred so modal dialogs do not block the calling client.
Click a button/checkbox/tool button by objectName or visible text (for QActions / menu items use trigger_action).
The click is deferred; the reply is immediate, so a modal dialog it opens does not block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | ||
| index | No | ||
| window | Yes | ||
| object_name | No |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the click is deferred and that the reply is immediate so a modal dialog does not block, which is important context. However, it does not describe failure behavior, required window context, or what the immediate reply contains, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an interaction tool.
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 description is two compact sentences and front-loads the core action and the key sibling exclusion. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.
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 four-parameter interaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It omits the required `window` parameter, the meaning of `index`, and error/return behavior, even though it does explain deferred clicking.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies two of the four parameters: `object_name` and `text`. It does not explain the required `window` parameter or the optional `index` parameter, leaving half of the parameters undocumented.
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 description states a specific verb and resource: clicking a button/checkbox/tool button by object name or visible text. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling `trigger_action` for QActions and menu items, so an agent can select the correct tool without inspecting schemas.
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?
It provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance by naming `trigger_action` as the alternative for QActions/menu items. The target elements and lookup methods are also clearly scoped.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.