sloth-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

probe_tooltips

Hover unnamed icons in the frontmost Mac window to capture their tooltips and label them, turning each drawing into clickable text by name.

Instructions

Let the application name its own icons: hover each unnamed icon of the FRONTMOST window and keep the tooltip it shows. This is the free half of icon labelling — annotate_icons asks you what a drawing is, this asks the program that drew it — so try it first on a window whose observe reply says 'icons: K labeled, M unlabeled'. A name it learns is written onto the drawing and onto every place that drawing appears in that app, exactly as submit_icon_labels writes yours, and from then on it is clickable as ordinary text: {action:'click', target:{text:'Share'}}. THIS ONE MOVES THE MOUSE. It is the only icon tool that touches the screen: the pointer visits each icon, waits out the tooltip delay (about a second and a half per icon, so a full call takes tens of seconds) and is put back where the user left it at the end. It works only on the window that is in front right now — bring the app forward with focus_app first — and it stops early, reporting how far it got, if the user pulls the mouse into the top-left corner, presses the stop button, or switches or moves the front window under it. Nothing is clicked and nothing is typed. limit (default 12, max 40) caps how many icons one call visits. Many controls have no tooltip at all; that is normal and the reply counts them ('showed none') — those are the ones to send to annotate_icons. The reply says how many were hovered, how many were named and which names were written, how many showed nothing, and how many drawings on that window still have no name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it moves the mouse and is the only icon tool that touches the screen, ~1.5s per icon (tens of seconds per call), pointer restored afterward, frontmost-window-only, early-stop conditions (top-left corner, stop button, window switch/move), and nothing is clicked or typed. Names are written globally across the app, which is important durable side-effect disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the routing decision, then caveats; every sentence adds information and the 'THIS ONE MOVES THE MOUSE' emphasis is functional. It is long and slightly dense, but there is little true waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with meaningful side effects and an output schema, the description covers invocation, safety, timing, stopping behavior, and even the shape of the reply reports. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description documents the single parameter well: 'limit (default 12, max 40) caps how many icons one call visits', adding the undocumented max of 40 beyond the schema's default. Minor gap only in that no other semantics exist to explain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete verb+resource ('hover each unnamed icon of the FRONTMOST window and keep the tooltip it shows') and explicitly distinguishes itself from both annotate_icons ('asks you what a drawing is') and submit_icon_labels ('writes yours'). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from its siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit routing: 'try it first' on windows whose observe reply shows unlabeled icons, 'bring the app forward with focus_app first', and directs controls with no tooltip to annotate_icons. When-to-use, prerequisites, and the alternative are all stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server