Skip to main content
Glama
Novpix

browsermcp-plus

by Novpix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_hover

Move the mouse pointer over a specified page element to trigger hover effects such as tooltips or menus; use the element reference from a page snapshot.

Instructions

Hover over element on page

Input Schema

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

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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the action name: it doesn't explain that hovering may trigger tooltips, dropdown menus, or other hover-only UI that the agent must then act on, which is the key behavioral nuance for this tool.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than genuinely tight.

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 simple interaction tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the one thing that matters most here: what hovering accomplishes and whether a follow-up action or snapshot is typically needed.

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 ref, element, and snapshot are all documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Hover over element on page'), so an agent immediately knows the action. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like browser_click or browser_find, which also target elements by ref.

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 hover versus clicking, finding, or evaluating. No prerequisites or typical follow-up (e.g., hover to reveal a menu before clicking) are mentioned.

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