Moves the pointer to a window-relative x,y coordinate. For single-pointer actions; use glass_do for sequences of two or more steps.
Move the pointer to a window-relative point. For 2+ known steps, use glass_do.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | Destination x in window-relative pixels. | |
| y | Yes | Destination y in window-relative pixels. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Input schema / properties / x / descriptionPrevious value: -"Destination x, window-relative — 0 is the window's left edge, not the screen's."New value: +"Destination x in window-relative pixels."Input schema / properties / y / descriptionPrevious value: -"Destination y, window-relative — 0 is the window's top edge, not the screen's."New value: +"Destination y in window-relative pixels."v1.2.0v1.0.3v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the core behavioral trait: moving the pointer without clicking or dragging. It also clarifies the window-relative coordinate semantics, which is useful context even though the schema already mentions it. With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the mutation semantics are consistent and adequately disclosed.
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 with no filler. The core action comes first and the alternative-tool routing is appended as a single conditional clause. Every word contributes.
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 simple two-parameter pointer-move tool, the description plus full schema coverage is sufficient. No output schema is needed for a side-effect operation, and the sibling guidance covers the main ambiguity.
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%, with x and y each described as 'Destination ... in window-relative pixels'. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('the pointer') plus a precise coordinate space ('window-relative point'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like glass_click or glass_drag by framing it as a pure pointer move.
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?
It explicitly names the alternative glass_do and gives the condition for choosing it ('For 2+ known steps'). This gives the agent actionable routing guidance beyond what the schema or tool name provides.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.