cdp_moveMove the mouse cursor to specific viewport coordinates (x, y) for browser automation, testing, or UI interaction via Chrome DevTools Protocol.
Move the mouse to viewport coordinates (x, y).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | Viewport X coordinate | |
| y | Yes | Viewport Y coordinate | |
| port | No | CDP debug port (default 9222). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the action itself: no mention that a live CDP session/tab is required, what happens if the target is detached, or whether the move is instantaneous versus animated.
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, correctly naming the action and its inputs first. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
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 pointer tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits the session/attachment prerequisite and any hint of interaction with cdp_click, which are the main things an agent would need.
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 x, y, and port are all documented in the schema, and the description merely echoes the x/y coordinate pair. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 applies and the description contributes no additional syntax or format detail.
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?
States a specific verb (Move) and resource (the mouse) with the coordinate scope spelled out, so the action itself is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings such as cdp_click, cdp_scroll, or desktop_move, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: no statement of prerequisites (an active CDP session/attached target) and no condition selecting this over cdp_click or desktop_move. The agent is left to infer that this is a bare pointer-positioning primitive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.