Move one page element onto another using source and target UIDs to trigger a drop action in Chrome.
Drag an element onto another element
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | No | Targets a specific page by ID. Defaults to the selected page. | |
| to_uid | Yes | ||
| from_uid | Yes | ||
| includeSnapshot | No | Whether to include a snapshot in the response. Default is false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a state-changing action but says nothing about side effects, whether native drag events are simulated, required element visibility, or what happens after the drop.
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. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool with four parameters and no annotations.
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 four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, behavioral effects, and usage context, leaving critical gaps for the agent.
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 50%, with from_uid and to_uid entirely undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining that these parameters represent source and target element UIDs, adding no meaning beyond the parameter names.
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 states a specific verb ('Drag') and resource ('an element onto another element'), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like click, hover, or fill, which are also element-interaction tools.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent must infer that this tool is appropriate when a drag-and-drop interaction is needed, with no explicit exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.