Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pironjulien

nexus-browser

by pironjulien
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

browser_hover

Hover an element in a background Chrome tab with a trusted CDP mouse move to reveal dropdown menus, submenus, tooltips, and hidden popovers.

Instructions

Hovers an element with a real CDP mouse move (isTrusted events), tab left in the background.

Reveals dropdown menus, submenus, tooltips and hidden popovers. Response: method ("cdp" or "js_fallback") and trusted_hover. An element covered by an overlay is reported as an error; nothing else is hovered. Targeting, one of:

  • mark: badge number from browser_interactive_map or vision_inspect (e.g. mark=5)

  • selector: CSS selector or mark hash (e.g. "#5", ".dropdown-trigger")

  • text: visible text of the element (e.g. "Options")

  • locator: role and label locator (see browser_click), takes precedence.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
markNo
textNo
tab_idYesYour tab's id (from browser_new_tab, or a tab adopted with browser_adopt_tab).
locatorNo
selectorNo
timeout_msNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.31.6
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "browser_hoverOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it uses a real CDP mouse move with isTrusted events, leaves the tab in the background, reports method and trusted_hover in the response, and reports an error when an overlay covers the element. These details meaningfully help the agent predict behavior and interpret results.

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 front-loaded with the core action and effect, followed by response behavior and a compact targeting list. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the important response fields and the overlay error case. It also covers most targeting parameters. The main gap is the unexplained timeout_ms parameter, but overall the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is low at 17%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It successfully explains the four targeting parameters—mark, selector, text, and locator—including locator precedence, and tab_id is documented in the schema. However, timeout_ms is not explained anywhere, leaving one parameter with unclear semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it hovers an element. It also identifies the intended effect—revealing dropdown menus, submenus, tooltips, and hidden popovers—which clearly distinguishes browser_hover from sibling interaction tools such as browser_click or browser_find.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context by explaining that hover reveals menus, submenus, tooltips, and popovers, and it enumerates the available targeting modes. It does not explicitly compare browser_hover with alternatives like browser_click or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear.

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