Moves a target's visible area by horizontal and vertical deltas; positive values go down or right. Uses accessibility or screen coordinates to reach targets, enabling navigation of overflowing content.
Scroll at a target by the given delta (positive = down/right).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dx | Yes | ||
| dy | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| strategy | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the direction convention but fails to explain what target refers to, how the scroll is executed, what the strategy parameter does, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.
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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and direction, achieving maximum conciseness without sacrificing the primary message.
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?
Given the tool's complexity—a nested target object, an enum strategy, and no output schema—the description is far too sparse. It omits essential details about target semantics and strategy selection, making it difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional inference.
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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only explains dx/dy via 'delta' and positive direction, leaving target's structure and strategy's enum values completely unexplained. The agent has no guidance on how to construct the target object or choose a strategy.
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 description clearly states the action (scroll), the resource (target), and the direction convention (positive = down/right). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling mouse actions like click or move, leaving no ambiguity about its core purpose.
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 implies usage for scrolling but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context of sibling tools makes it obvious, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.