Move a Safari page up, down, left, or right by adjustable ticks, or bring a specified element into view.
Scroll the page by ticks in a direction, or scroll an element (ref) into view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| tab | No | Tab id "windowId:tabIndex" from tabs_list. Omit for the active tab of the front window. | |
| amount | No | ||
| direction | No | down |
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 full disclosure burden. It does not say whether scrolling is instant or animated, whether the call waits for scroll completion, what happens when ref is not found or scrolls off-page, or whether the operation is safe/reversible.
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 two well-packed clauses and zero filler; both modes are stated immediately.
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 zero-required-parameter UI action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two modes adequately but omits failure behavior, return semantics, and tick magnitude, which an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 only 25% (only tab is documented), so the description has to compensate. It does add meaning to amount ('ticks') and ref ('element to scroll into view'), but leaves the size of a tick, the default of 5, the 1-50 bounds, and the interaction between ref and direction entirely unexplained.
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 states a specific verb and resource (scroll the page) and names both operating modes: by ticks in a direction, or by ref into view. It is clearly distinct from siblings like click or navigate, though it does not explicitly say so.
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 'or' clause implies when to supply ref (scroll an element into view) versus amount/direction (scroll the page), but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over read_page, find, or screenshot, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.