desktop_scrollScroll an element or page up, down, left, or right to navigate content during automated desktop tasks. Specify direction and amount for precise movement.
Scroll an element or page by direction (up, down, left, right).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | No | ||
| headed | No | ||
| ref_id | No | ||
| direction | No | down |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short: it does not disclose whether scrolling is instant or animated, whether it blocks, what happens if ref_id points at a non-scrollable element, or what the output reports. Only the direction set is conveyed.
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, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification given four undocumented parameters rather than being genuinely economical.
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?
An output schema covers return values, but for a four-parameter action tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves critical facts (units for amount, meaning of headed, targeting semantics of ref_id) entirely unstated.
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 0% across 4 parameters. The description only clarifies the direction values (up/down/left/right); it says nothing about amount (default 3 — pixels? lines? notches?), ref_id (empty default implies page-level scroll, but this is never stated), or the opaque 'headed' flag.
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?
Specific verb ("Scroll") plus a clear resource ("an element or page") and an enumerated direction axis, which distinguishes it from siblings like desktop_click or desktop_press. No explicit sibling comparison, but the action is unambiguous.
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 never says when to scroll versus using desktop_verify_element/desktop_find to locate a target first, nor when to omit ref_id for page-level scrolling. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.