Execute browser interactions such as clicking, typing, scrolling, navigating, and taking screenshots to automate web tasks.
Unified interaction: click, double_click, right_click, move, type, fill, key, scroll, hover, wait, navigate, screenshot
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| key | No | ||
| ref | No | ||
| url | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| delay | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| button | No | left | |
| by_text | No | ||
| selector | No | ||
| scroll_amount | No | ||
| scroll_direction | No | down |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats the action enum already present in the schema. It does not explain side effects, state changes, differences between similar actions (e.g., type vs fill or click vs hover), 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, but the only substantive phrase is 'Unified interaction'; the rest is a verbatim enumeration of the schema's action enum. This is under-specification rather than earned conciseness.
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?
This is a 13-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, yet the description provides no action-specific semantics, usage context, or behavioral details. It is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 0% for 13 parameters, and the description adds no meaning to x, y, text, selector, key, delay, scroll_direction, or any other parameter. It merely lists action names already defined in the schema's action enum.
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?
The phrase 'Unified interaction' plus the action list conveys that this is a consolidated interaction tool, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it does not state a specific resource or distinguish itself from sibling tools like click, type, navigate, hover, and scroll, which offer the same individual actions.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many specialized sibling tools. The word 'Unified' only implies that it consolidates interactions, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.