Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-browser-mcp

agent-browser-mcp

by zy2755
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_click

Clicks browser elements via snapshot ref or visible text, waits until actionable, re-resolves stale refs, and returns an updated snapshot after each click.

Instructions

点击元素(优先用快照里的 ref)。自动等待可操作、自动重解析失效 ref、点击后自动附最新快照。特殊对话框会自动处理并上报。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "browser_click"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNo快照中的 [eN] 编号
textNo按可见文本匹配
buttonNo
selectorNoCSS 选择器(ref 不可用时的兜底)
snapshotNo点击后是否附快照(默认 true)
timeoutMsNo
doubleClickNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable behavior – auto-wait for actionability, auto re-resolve stale refs, auto snapshot attachment, automatic dialog handling – but omits failure behavior, what happens on navigation, and what the 'reported' dialog result looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a tight, front-loaded paragraph with no filler; each clause conveys distinct behavior. Minor style issue: the parenthetical preference would read better as a separate sentence.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 7-parameter tool with zero required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core interaction loop well but leaves the agent guessing about several parameters and the return/pagination behavior beyond snapshot attachment.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 57%. The description adds real meaning by explaining ref priority and the automatic re-resolution of stale refs, and it clarifies the snapshot-attachment behavior tied to the snapshot parameter. It says nothing about text, button, doubleClick, or timeoutMs, which remain undocumented in both places.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource (点击元素) and immediately scopes it to clicking, which is distinguishable from hover/type/select siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states a preference order within the call (use ref from the snapshot first) and implies clicking is for elements, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like browser_hover or browser_type, nor any exclusion conditions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools