Mithwire MCP

browser_mouse_move

Move the mouse cursor to viewport pixel coordinates (x, y) with intermediate CDP mouseMoved events to create cursor trails before clicks or hover interactions.

Instructions

Move the mouse cursor to viewport pixel position (x, y) via intermediate mouseMoved CDP events. Useful for creating cursor movement trails before a click or for hover interactions.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "browser_mouse_move"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`x`	Yes
`y`	Yes
`steps`	No
`session_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that movement is implemented via intermediate mouseMoved CDP events and is useful for trails or hover, but it omits session/auth requirements, side effects, and how the steps parameter affects behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences, front-loads the core action, and then adds intended use cases. There is no redundant or wasted language.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values do not need description. For a low-risk mouse-move tool, the purpose and mechanism are adequately covered, but without annotations and with 0% schema coverage, the missing steps semantics and session context leave notable gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters. The description clarifies x and y as viewport pixel coordinates, which adds useful meaning, but it entirely omits the steps parameter and session_id, leaving important invocation details undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: moving the mouse cursor to viewport pixel coordinates via intermediate CDP mouseMoved events. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like browser_mouse_click or browser_click.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives implied contexts, saying it is useful for creating cursor movement trails before a click or for hover interactions. However, it does not name alternatives, state when not to use it, or explain prerequisites in any explicit way.

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

Deploy Server