Drags from a coordinate or element ref to another with the button held, enabling slider, kanban, and map interactions.
Arrastra de un punto/ref a otro con el botón pulsado (sliders, kanban, mapas).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| from | Yes | ||
| snapshot | No | Si true, devuelve el snapshot tras la acción (ahorra un turno) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the button is held during the move; it says nothing about whether the source element is scrolled into view, how the gesture is sequenced (inserted pauses/steps), whether it fails silently on non-draggable targets, or what side effects occur on the page.
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 dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the core action and mechanism before the examples. It is appropriately sized for a gesture tool, though it could have packed in one more operational detail at the same length.
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?
For a nested, three-parameter interactive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much open: nothing on ref acquisition workflow, scroll-into-view behavior, or result/wait semantics. The from/to coordinate-vs-ref duality is the only complexity it addresses.
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 coverage is 33%: the nested from/to properties (x, y, ref) are documented in the schema, but the top-level from/to/snapshot flags are not. The phrase 'de un punto/ref a otro' usefully conveys that each endpoint accepts either coordinates or a snapshot ref, which adds real meaning beyond the schema, but the snapshot parameter is left entirely to the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (arrastra/drag) plus the source–target resource ('de un punto/ref a otro') and the mechanic ('con el botón pulsado'), which is enough to tell it apart from a simple click. It never names a sibling such as browser_move or browser_click, so differentiation is only implicit.
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 parenthetical examples (sliders, kanban, mapas) imply the class of UI widgets this is for, which is useful context. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing, no prerequisite (e.g. obtaining the ref via browser_snapshot/browser_find first), and no exclusion cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.