scroll
Scroll the mouse wheel.
delta: number of ticks. Positive = scroll down, negative = scroll up.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| delta | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries burden; explains delta meaning and direction, though no side effects or platform details.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded, no wasted words; efficient and clear.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter; could mention units (pixels/lines) but still complete.
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 0%, description adds value by explaining delta as ticks and sign convention beyond schema type.
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?
Description clearly states the tool scrolls the mouse wheel, distinguishing it from siblings like click, move_mouse, etc.
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?
Provides basic usage (delta meaning) but lacks guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use.
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 targets a distinct action: clicks, screenshots (raw, corrected, calibration aids), keyboard input, mouse movement, scrolling, and corner calibration. There is no ambiguity between tools.
Tool names mix conventions: some are single verbs (click, scroll, key), some are verb_noun (move_mouse, set_corners, type_text), and some are longer phrases (take_screenshot_with_crosshair). Although readable, the inconsistency is notable.
With 12 tools, the server covers all essential interactions for camera-based screen control without being bloated or sparse. Each tool has a clear role.
The tool set covers clicking, typing, key combinations, mouse movement, scrolling, and multiple screenshot modes including calibration aids. Missing drag/swipe functionality is a minor gap.