scrollMove the window or a targeted element by wheel notches in a given direction to navigate content.
Scroll the window, or at a ref/mark/point, by wheel notches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| mark | No | ||
| point | No | ||
| amount | No | Wheel notches | |
| direction | Yes | ||
| observation_id | Yes | observation_id of the observation you act on |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Scroll' implies a write-like action (readOnlyHint=false), but the description does not explain side effects, required state, observation dependencies, or what happens if scroll bounds are reached. This is a significant gap for a UI interaction 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and non-redundant. It states the core action and target options without waste, though it could benefit from slightly more structure for a multi-parameter tool.
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 6 parameters, 33% schema coverage, no annotations, and a UI interaction context, the description is inadequate. It omits direction, amount, observation_id semantics, default targeting logic, and behavioral constraints. An agent would need to infer much from the schema alone.
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 33%, so many parameters lack formal descriptions. The description mentions 'ref/mark/point' and 'wheel notches', which maps to some parameters but omits direction, amount, observation_id, and the default behavior (window). It adds marginal value but leaves key parameters undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Scroll the window') and describes scope ('or at a ref/mark/point') and method ('by wheel notches'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like click or type_text. The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Usage context is implied by the object/target description. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines, and no alternatives are named. The schema defaults (window if no ref/mark/point) are only in the schema description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.