Move accessibility focus to a given element in the active window via its ID, enabling keyboard or assistive technology input. Inspect to verify focus.
Request accessibility focus in the active window. Inspect to confirm focused state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| element_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Request accessibility focus' implies a best-effort action rather than a guaranteed change, and 'Inspect to confirm focused state' explicitly warns that verification is needed. This is meaningful behavior disclosure for a focus tool, though it does not detail permissions or error conditions.
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 short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a practical verification step. Every word 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description provides the active-window scope and a verification instruction. It does not explain where element_id comes from or possible failure modes, but sibling tool names and the concise workflow largely fill that gap.
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?
The schema provides only the name and type of element_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain what element_id refers to or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling tools.
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 and resource: 'Request accessibility focus in the active window.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like desktop_click or desktop_invoke, and adding 'active window' defines the scope precisely.
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 description gives a clear follow-up workflow ('Inspect to confirm focused state'), which implies how to verify the result. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like desktop_click, desktop_invoke, or desktop_activate, and no exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.