Scroll the mouse wheel.
delta: number of ticks. Positive = scroll down, negative = scroll up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| delta | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially covers behavioral traits by explaining the delta parameter's direction and meaning. However, it does not disclose whether the scroll occurs at the current mouse position, whether it is virtual or physical, or what happens if no scrollable area is present.
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 extremely concise with two sentences, both essential. It front-loads the core action and immediately explains the parameter, with no unnecessary words.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It explains the parameter and the action. One minor gap: it does not mention that scrolling happens at the current cursor location, which could be inferred but not explicit.
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%, but the description adds significant meaning for the delta parameter: it clarifies that delta is in ticks and defines positive/negative direction. This goes beyond the schema's bare type constraint.
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 tool scrolls the mouse wheel and explains the delta parameter. The verb 'scroll' and resource 'mouse wheel' are specific, and there is no sibling tool for scrolling, so it is well distinguished.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like click or move_mouse. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: click actions, mouse movement, keyboard input, scrolling, screen captures (raw, calibrated, with grid or crosshair), and calibration. No overlap between tools.
All tools use snake_case verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., get_corners, take_screenshot, set_corners), with longer names following the same convention (e.g., take_screenshot_with_crosshair).
12 tools are well-scoped for remote computer control and calibration, covering essential actions without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers core operations (click, type, scroll, screenshot, calibration) but lacks a dedicated drag or right-click tool, which agents may need to work around.