Trigger hover-dependent UI states by hovering over an element identified by UID on a specified page, with optional snapshot response for inspection.
Hover over the provided element
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | The uid of an element on the page from the page content snapshot | |
| pageId | Yes | Targets a specific page by ID. | |
| includeSnapshot | No | Whether to include a snapshot in the response. Default is false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint: false is provided, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond it. It does not explain whether hover triggers asynchronous effects, waits for UI changes, or requires any specific conditions. Since annotations are present but the description offers no extra insight, it scores low.
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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, but for pure conciseness it earns a 4.
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 action tool, the description lacks necessary context: no mention of hover effects, potential side effects, or how it interacts with the snapshot parameter. With no output schema and minimal guidance, it is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
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?
All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description itself adds nothing about parameters ('provided element' only hints at uid). Given high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance the parameter understanding.
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 'Hover over the provided element' clearly states a specific verb (hover) and resource (the provided element). It distinguishes from sibling actions like click, drag, or press_key, making its purpose unmistakable.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention typical scenarios (e.g., triggering tooltips, hover-dependent UI), prerequisites, or exclusions. Users must infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.