Moves the mouse pointer over a target to reveal menus and tooltips, enabling AI agents to interact with hidden UI elements.
Move the mouse over a target (reveals :hover menus and tooltips).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | Tab id such as "t3"; default is the active tab | |
| target | Yes | A ref from snapshot/find ("e12"), a point "x,y" in the last screenshot's pixels, or a Playwright selector (text=…, role=button[name="…"], #id, css=…, xpath=…) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare openWorldHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that the action reveals :hover menus and tooltips, but it omits details like whether any state persists, timing behavior, or what the tool returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and a compact parenthetical adding the key effect. There is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter interaction tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and effect. Minor gaps remain around timing and post-hover behavior, but nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the tab and target parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: "Move the mouse over a target." The parenthetical clarifies the effect (revealing :hover menus and tooltips). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like click or find.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when the tool is useful: when hover-triggered menus or tooltips need to be revealed. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives such as click, but the intended use case is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.