Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
duplex

duplex

by Eric-huang799
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

drag

Simulate a real mouse press-and-move from one element or point to another using refs or CSS selectors to automate UI interactions.

Instructions

Drag from one point/element to another (refs or CSS selectors) using real mouse events.

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": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "drag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesTarget element ref or CSS selector
fromYesSource element ref or CSS selector
tabIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the mechanism is 'real mouse events' rather than synthetic or HTML5 drag events, which materially affects whether a DnD target responds. It does not disclose side effects, visibility requirements, or failure behavior.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and endpoints with no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, so length is not the problem.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation-style browser action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanic but omits tab targeting semantics and any statement about what a successful drag returns or how to verify it. Adequate minimum, clear gaps.

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 67% with from/to documented as refs or CSS selectors — the description repeats that same detail rather than adding new meaning. The undocumented tabId parameter is not explained anywhere, so the description neither compensates for the gap nor adds value beyond the schema.

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 (drag) and the source/target resources, and clarifies both endpoints accept refs or CSS selectors. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like click, hover, and dblclick, though no sibling is named.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the verb — an agent can infer this is the tool for drag-and-drop interactions rather than clicking. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. elements must be visible or already located via snapshot), and no routing away from click/hover.

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