Scroll a Kasm Workspaces session vertically or horizontally, optionally at specified x,y coordinates from the latest screenshot, to navigate remote desktop content.
Scroll the Kasm session, optionally at x,y from the latest kasm_look image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| amount | No | Wheel clicks, 1-30 (default 5) | |
| direction | No | ||
| session_id | No | Kasm session id. Omit to use your newest running session. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose the default direction, the default amount (5 wheel clicks, only in the schema), whether scrolling is relative to the current viewport, or what happens if the coordinate is outside the captured image.
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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse given the gaps it leaves open.
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 5-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema and only 40% schema coverage, the description is thin. Key behavioral facts an agent needs — direction default, coordinate origin/reference frame, session continuity — are left to inference.
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 coverage is only 40% — x and y have bare integer types with no schema text, and the description usefully clarifies they refer to coordinates on the latest kasm_look image. It adds nothing about the direction parameter (enum with no stated default) or the amount range beyond what the schema already says.
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 (scroll) and resource (Kasm session), and the optional x,y anchor ties it to the kasm_look workflow. It does not contrast itself with siblings like kasm_click, but the purpose is immediately 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 phrase 'from the latest kasm_look image' implies the intended workflow: look first, then scroll at a coordinate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the direction default, and no note on staying in the same session as look/click.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.