Finds and clicks the first element matching a CSS selector in a Safari tab. Returns a not-found result when no selector match exists.
Click the first element matching a CSS selector in a Safari tab. Returns found=False (not an error) if nothing matched the selector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | ||
| window | No | ||
| selector | 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. It explicitly mentions that a missing match returns found=False (not an error), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose the success return value, behavior when multiple elements match (only first is stated), or any side effects. This is partial disclosure but adds some value.
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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that lead with the purpose and add a key behavioral note. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
The lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should cover return values and parameter semantics. It does explain the not-found case, but omits the success return value and any detail about tab/window parameters. For a simple tool, this is adequate but leaves clear gaps that an agent might need, such as what to expect on success.
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 implicitly explains 'selector' as a CSS selector, but does not clarify the 'tab' and 'window' parameters—what they mean, whether they are indices, or their default behavior. Two of three parameters remain effectively undocumented, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 clearly states the action ('Click'), the resource ('element in a Safari tab'), and the selection method ('CSS selector'). It also differentiates from siblings by specifying the 'first element' behavior and the not-found case. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose that any agent can understand without ambiguity.
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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to click an element in a Safari tab using a CSS selector. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like safari_fill or safari_js. This aligns with the 'clear context, no exclusions' rating.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.