Skip to main content
Glama
Novpix

browsermcp-plus

by Novpix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_drag

Destructive

Simulate drag-and-drop between two elements on a web page using source and target references from a page snapshot.

Instructions

Perform drag and drop between two elements

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endRefYesExact target element reference from the page snapshot
snapshotNoAlso return the page snapshot after the action (default: no). Use it when you need to see the result right away.
startRefYesExact source element reference from the page snapshot
endElementYesHuman-readable target element description used to obtain the permission to interact with the element
startElementYesHuman-readable source element description used to obtain the permission to interact with the element

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / snapshot
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Also return the page snapshot after the action (default: no). Use it when you need to see the result right away.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. But the description adds nothing beyond the annotations: it does not warn that dragging can trigger arbitrary page behavior (file drops, state mutations), nor mention the snapshot-ref requirement or the optional post-action snapshot. With annotations present, some gap is tolerable, but zero added context warrants a low score.

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, waste-free sentence that is appropriately sized for the tool. It is front-loaded but arguably too sparse to be considered exemplary given the tool's complexity.

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 destructive, open-world interaction with four required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain that element refs come from a page snapshot and that the action can trigger arbitrary page effects. None of that is present, leaving meaningful gaps despite good schema coverage.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the required start/end refs and the optional snapshot flag. The description only restates the 'two elements' idea and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('drag and drop') and resource ('between two elements'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_hover. However, it does not name or distinguish itself from any specific alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_click or browser_hover, nor any prerequisites (e.g. needing element refs from a snapshot). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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