Move the mouse cursor to given X/Y coordinates on an interactive Windows desktop, with optional speed control. Automate clicks, hovering, and UI interactions in desktop apps.
Windows AutoIt mouseMove. Requires a trusted owner and an interactive Windows x64 desktop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | X coordinate | |
| y | Yes | Y coordinate | |
| speed | No | Mouse movement speed (1-100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: the call requires a trusted owner and an interactive Windows x64 desktop, which explains why it may fail. It does not describe failure behavior or coordinate frame, keeping it short of a 5.
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, zero filler, with the identity and then the environment prerequisite front-loaded. Nothing in the text 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 three-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations, the description covers the environment prerequisite but leaves out coordinate-frame semantics (absolute vs. window-relative) and any failure/timing notes. It is adequate but has 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 100%, so the schema already documents x, y, and speed (including defaults and ranges), establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, such as whether x/y are absolute screen pixels or relative to a window.
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 names a specific verb+resource (mouseMove) and adds platform context (Windows AutoIt), making the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like mouseClickDrag or mouseDown/mouseUp, but the name plus platform identifies it clearly.
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 states prerequisites for use ('trusted owner', 'interactive Windows x64 desktop'), which is genuine usage guidance, but never says when to choose this over mouseClickDrag, mouseDown/mouseUp, or how it relates to mouseGetPos. Usage is implied rather than routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.