Returns the agent cursor's current coordinates and identifies the page element beneath it, so agents can verify pointer position before interacting.
Posición actual del cursor del agente y el elemento bajo él.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does convey that this is a state-read (position + element under it) rather than a mutation, which is the key safety signal. However, it says nothing about the shape of the response, coordinate system, or what happens when the cursor is outside the viewport or over no element.
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 with no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of truth about the return value, and it only sketches it (position and element). For a zero-argument getter that is minimally adequate, but the return format and edge cases are left unstated.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% for the empty object.
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 names a specific resource: the agent's current cursor position plus the element beneath it. That is precise enough to know what the tool reports, though it lacks an explicit verb and never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings such as browser_element_at, browser_move, or browser_cursor_style.
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?
There is no indication of when to call this versus alternatives like browser_element_at or browser_snapshot, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.