Move the mouse cursor to exact X/Y coordinates in Electron app tests, with optional intermediate steps to control movement.
Move mouse cursor to specific coordinates
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | X coordinate | |
| y | Yes | Y coordinate | |
| steps | No | Number of intermediate steps for smooth movement (default: 1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not mention what coordinate system is used (screen vs viewport), whether the operation is blocking, or any side effects. For a GUI automation tool, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is a single, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place without redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context to be complete. It does not explain the coordinate system, the effect of the steps parameter beyond the schema, or any usage constraints. For a three-parameter tool with no behavioral metadata, this is insufficient.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (x, y, steps) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as coordinate origin or step behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states a specific verb 'Move' and resource 'mouse cursor' plus the target 'specific coordinates'. It distinguishes from siblings like click or drag by focusing solely on movement, but it does not explicitly differentiate from hover or mouseClick which might also move the cursor. Overall, it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hover, mouseClick, or drag. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.