Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
umbra

umbra

by lxchx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Hover

hover

Simulate mouse pointer placement at (x,y) to reveal menus, tooltips, and pointer-triggered buttons during browser automation.

Instructions

Hover at (x,y) — reveals :hover menus, tooltips, hover-to-show buttons.

Ex: hover('t0', 200, 100) → {"ok":true}

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": {
      "tab_id": "<tab_id>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "hover"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes
tab_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the intended UI effect plus a sample success result. It does not explain side effects such as triggering JavaScript handlers, movement behavior, or whether it waits for hover-revealed content.

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 two lines, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by a compact example. Every sentence contributes useful information without waste.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return structure. Still, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it leaves important calling details such as coordinate interpretation and hover timing underspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters. The example shows tab_id and coordinate values in call form, but it does not define coordinate origin, units, or tab_id semantics beyond the example.

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: hovering at (x,y) to reveal hover menus, tooltips, and hover-to-show buttons. This makes the purpose clear, but it does not explicitly contrast the tool with nearby siblings such as click_at or aria_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 mention of hover menus, tooltips, and hover-to-show buttons implies when this tool is useful. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer hover over click_at, aria_click, or find_by_text, and no exclusions are stated.

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