Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BrowserMCP Extended

BrowserMCP Extended

by NEO10111
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

browser_hover

Simulates hovering over a page element to reveal hover-dependent UI or verify pointer interactions; use the element description and exact reference from the latest snapshot.

Instructions

Hover over element on page

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": {
      "element": "<element>",
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "browser_hover"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesExact element reference from the latest snapshot
elementYesHuman-readable element description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and provides almost none. It does not say whether hovering triggers dynamic content, whether a wait is needed afterward, or whether it mutates page state.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Four words with zero waste and the action is front-loaded, but the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a browser-automation primitive with no annotations and no output schema, the description should mention that hover effects are asynchronous or that follow-up waits may be needed. It leaves required calling knowledge entirely to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%: 'ref' is documented as the exact element reference from the latest snapshot and 'element' as a human-readable description. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Hover') and resource ('element on page'), so an agent immediately knows the action. It does not distinguish itself from close interaction siblings like browser_click or browser_drag, which also target an element reference.

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 statement of when to hover rather than click, drag, or select. The agent must infer that hovering is for revealing tooltips, hover menus, or hover-only styling.

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