Move the visible cursor to an element reference or x,y coordinates to trigger real mouseover and mousemove events for hover-based UI interactions.
Mueve el cursor visible (hover) a un ref o a x,y. Dispara mouseover/mousemove reales.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | Coordenada X en píxeles CSS del viewport | |
| y | No | Coordenada Y en píxeles CSS del viewport | |
| ref | No | Ref de un elemento devuelto por browser_snapshot/browser_find (ej. 12 o "f1:7" en iframes) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that it fires real mouseover/mousemove events (not synthetic), but says nothing about what happens on an invalid ref, whether the element is scrolled into view first, or which target wins when both ref and x,y are supplied.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action and its targeting options front-loaded.
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 three-parameter, non-mutating interaction tool with no output schema the essentials are present, but the ref-vs-x,y precedence and error behavior on a stale ref remain unstated — the main gaps an agent could hit when calling it.
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 100% and every parameter carries a description including the ref format example ('f1:7' in iframes), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the two target modes and adds no precedence or unit detail beyond 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?
Names a specific verb+resource: moves the visible cursor (hover) to a ref or to x,y. This clearly separates it from browser_cursor (presumably querying position) and browser_click, though it never explicitly contrasts with any sibling.
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 '(hover)' implies the use case and the two targeting modes are stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as browser_cursor or browser_click for actually triggering elements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.