Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Astrax

Astrax

by AstraxOf
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

astrax_scroll

Scroll the desktop vertically by an amount from -30 to 30: positive moves up, negative moves down; optional x,y target a position.

Instructions

Scroll vertical: positivo = arriba, negativo = abajo (-30..30). x,y opcionales (juntos).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cantidad": "<cantidad>"
    },
    "name": "astrax_scroll"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
cantidadYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the sign convention (positive=up, negative=down), the valid range (-30..30), and that x,y must be supplied together, but says nothing about what x,y actually do or how out-of-range values are handled.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single terse sentence with the most important constraint (sign convention) front-loaded. Efficient, though the terseness is partly a byproduct of under-specification given the 0% schema coverage.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should say more about x,y and error behavior to fully enable correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the semantics of 'cantidad' (sign and -30..30 range) and the coupling of x,y, but never explains what x and y represent (presumably coordinates), leaving two of three parameters partially opaque.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and axis ('Scroll vertical') with a clear sign convention. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like astrax_clic or astrax_escribir, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or context. It only conveys parameter behavior, leaving the agent to infer when a scroll is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools