Scroll the page by pixel amount or bring a specific element into view, so you can reach off-screen content and interact with elements below the fold during browser automation.
Scroll the page by pixels, or scroll a specific element into view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | No | ||
| selector | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey two distinct behavioral modes (offset scroll vs. scrollIntoView), which is real information, but omits the sign/direction convention for 'amount', whether negative values scroll up, how a missing selector is handled, and whether scrolling waits for content to settle.
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; the verb and both operational modes are stated immediately. Nothing in it is redundant.
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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the core behavior is covered, but an agent still lacks direction semantics, default behavior, and failure handling for an invalid selector. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does define both parameters in plain terms (pixels for 'amount', target element for 'selector'). However, it does not explain precedence when both are supplied, nor mention the 800px default or that selector is an empty string by default.
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 (scroll) and two concrete resources (page by pixels, element into view), which is enough to distinguish it from browsing siblings like browse_click or browse_get_text. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any named alternative, keeping it below a 5.
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 two modes imply when each is appropriate (pixel offset vs. element target), but the description never says when not to use it, whether both parameters can be combined, or which sibling to prefer for related viewport work such as browse_wait_for. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.