Hover the mouse over an element (reveals tooltips + hover menus). ref is a CSS selector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| page_id | Yes | ||
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare that the operation is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds the visual effect of hovering, but it does not explain whether the hover state persists, what page state is required, or what the call returns. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.
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 short sentences, front-loads the action and its effect, and adds the key parameter semantics without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple browser action with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and ref semantics. However, it leaves the required page_id parameter undocumented and does not mention preconditions such as an open browser page, so a meaningful gap remains.
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 33%: page_id and ref are required but have no schema descriptions. The description explains ref as a CSS selector, but leaves page_id completely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.
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 (Hover) and resource (mouse over an element) and immediately clarifies the observable outcome: revealing tooltips and hover menus. This distinguishes it from sibling browser actions such as browser_click, browser_type, and browser_drag.
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 parenthetical 'reveals tooltips + hover menus' gives clear context for when the tool is useful, namely interacting with hover-dependent UI. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use browser_click instead, but the usage context is easy to infer.
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.