Skip to main content
Glama

Enhance cursor

enhance_cursor

PROJECT-SCOPED: this call acts only on the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. MAKE THE MOUSE POINTER BIGGER AND STEADIER — THE tool for 'the cursor is too small' / 'too jittery' on a screen recording. It finds the pointer in the source frames, repaints the original out, and redraws it at scalex (1-4; 2 is the usual answer) along a path filtered to remove hand tremor — smoothing 0-1, where fast deliberate moves stay sharp at any setting. click_times is a list of SOURCE-video seconds that get an expanding ripple: I CANNOT see clicks in the pixels (nothing distinguishes a press from a hover), so either pass the times record_website_demo reported, or ask the user when the clicks were — never guess them. Set click_highlight=false to skip the ripples. This bakes into the source copy the render reads, so every cut keeps it and no timestamp moves; it reports what fraction of frames the pointer was actually found in and refuses outright on footage that has no visible cursor. Undo with remove_cursor_enhance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scaleNo
smoothingNo
project_idYesRequired immutable scope for this call. Copy the id from list_projects/open_project/project_state; the active-project pointer is never used to guess.
click_timesNo
click_highlightNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say not read-only and not destructive, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it bakes into the source copy, reports fraction of frames found, refuses on no-visible-cursor, and cannot detect clicks in pixels. This is rich, accurate behavior disclosure beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Every sentence adds value: scope, purpose, mechanics, parameter meanings, limitations, and side effects. It is dense but efficiently organized, with the most critical constraints (project-scoped, don't guess clicks) front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers everything needed: what it does, when to use, parameter semantics, side effects, undo path, and failure conditions. An agent can call it correctly without ambiguity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is only 20% (only project_id has a description). The description explains scale (1-4, 2 usual), smoothing (0-1, hand tremor), click_times (source-video seconds, must be provided or asked), and click_highlight (skip ripples). It fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific action (enhance cursor), the target (small/jittery pointer on screen recording), and differentiates from the undo sibling remove_cursor_enhance. It names the exact problem it solves, making selection unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says when to use (for small/jittery cursor on recordings) and when it refuses (no visible cursor). It instructs on click_times (pass from record_website_demo or ask user, never guess) and mentions undo via remove_cursor_enhance. Lacks a direct 'use X instead' but context is clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.