Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fast Browser MCP

Fast Browser MCP

by kqlio67
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

browser_mouse

Perform right-click, double-click, move, and drag-and-drop actions on browser elements to automate Chrome interactions.

Instructions

Advanced mouse operations: right-click, double-click, move, or drag-and-drop.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "browser_mouse"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
refNoTarget element ref (@1, @2) for click/dblclick/right-click
actionYes
to_refNoTarget element ref for drag_and_drop
from_refNoSource element ref for drag_and_drop
selectorNoTarget CSS selector

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 says nothing about whether actions require a resolved element ref versus raw coordinates, whether the call waits for the interaction to settle, or what side effects a drag-and-drop produces.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and leads with the resource category before the action list. Slightly terse for a seven-parameter tool, but efficient.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin — it omits parameter wiring (ref vs selector vs coordinates), drag-and-drop source/target requirements, and any failure behavior.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 57% schema description coverage, the description adds some meaning by naming the four actions that map to the 'action' enum values. It does not clarify the ref/selector/x-y alternatives or the from_ref/to_ref pairing for drag-and-drop, so the remaining undocumented parameters stay ambiguous.

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?

States a specific resource (mouse operations) and enumerates the four supported actions, so an agent knows exactly what the tool performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling browser_click, leaving the 'advanced vs basic' boundary to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The word 'Advanced' hints that browser_click covers simple clicks, but the description never states when to choose this tool over browser_click or what prerequisites (element ref, page focus) apply. No when-not guidance is given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools