dawg-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_hover

Hover over a specific element on a web page using its reference identifier and retrieve an updated AI-powered snapshot of the page state.

Instructions

Hover over an element identified by ref. Returns a fresh AI snapshot.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "element": "<element>",
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "browser_hover"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`element`	Yes
`ref`	Yes
`session_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description discloses that it 'Returns a fresh AI snapshot' after hovering, but provides no information about side effects (e.g., triggering tooltips, focus changes) or required permissions. With no annotations, the agent lacks essential behavioral context.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences, no redundant information. The first sentence states the action and the second describes the output. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the 'element' and 'ref' parameters, nor does it describe the snapshot format or any prerequisites. For a browser interaction tool, this is insufficient.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters but fails to do so. It mentions 'element identified by ref' but does not clarify the purpose of the 'element' parameter, leaving ambiguity. The 'session_id' parameter is not mentioned at all.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Hover over an element') and the resource ('identified by ref'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_type since 'hover' is a unique action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate its use case from other interaction tools.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., browser_click, browser_get_text). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, making it hard for an agent to determine the appropriate context for hovering.

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