Hover over a target element by ref or Playwright selector to reveal tooltips, menus, or hover-triggered states during automated browser sessions.
Hover over an element.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Element ref like e3 from a prior browser_snapshot, OR a raw Playwright selector (css=, xpath=, text=, role=). | |
| element | No | Human-readable element description for logging only. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses essentially nothing beyond the bare action. It does not say whether the hover triggers page effects, whether it waits for resulting UI, whether it holds the pointer position, or what happens if the element is not visible.
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 and no wasted words. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but as pure conciseness it is efficient.
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 annotations and no output schema, this three-word description leaves the agent without any behavioral or usage context for a stateful browser interaction. An agent cannot tell from the definition when hovering is appropriate, what side effects to expect, or how to interpret failure.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both `target` (element ref or Playwright selector) and `element` (logging-only description) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (hover) and resource (element), which is unambiguous and readily distinguishable from siblings like browser_click, browser_drag, and browser_type. It lacks any explicit sibling differentiation or scope statement, but the action itself is self-evident.
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 description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of the common reason to hover (revealing tooltips, dropdown menus, hover-activated controls) nor any note about which sibling to use instead when interaction is not a simple pointer-over.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.