Hover the mouse over a specified element on a webpage, using a unique selector or element description for permission.
Hover over element on page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Exact target element reference from the page snapshot, or a unique element selector | |
| element | No | Human-readable element description used to obtain permission to interact with the element |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to re-state them. The description adds no extra behavioral detail about side effects (e.g., triggering JavaScript events, potential menu changes). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but there's still room for more transparency about outcomes.
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 extremely concise—six words, no redundancy, and perfectly focused on the action. It follows a clear verb-object structure with no extra fluff, making it easy to parse and understand.
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 simple interaction tool, the description, alongside the parameter schema and annotations, is adequate. It lacks details on return values (but no output schema exists) and does not mention any prerequisites or setup. Given the simplicity, it covers essential context without being overlong.
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?
Both parameters (target and element) have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the action. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the action (hover) and the target (element on page). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like click, drag, and type by specifying the hover action. However, it lacks detail about what the hover does (e.g., showing tooltips or hover menus), but the core purpose is clear.
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 explicit guidance on when to use hover versus other interactions. While it's intuitive that hover is for mouse-over actions, the description doesn't mention edge cases or alternative tools (e.g., use click for activating, hover for previews). It provides minimal implicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.