@nxavis/agent-browser-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_hover

Hover over a specific element on a web page using a CSS selector. Simulates mouse hover to trigger interactions like dropdowns and tooltips.

Instructions

Hover over an element

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "selector": "<selector>"
    },
    "name": "browser_hover"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`selector`	Yes	Selector for the element to hover
`sessionId`	No	Browser session ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits, but it provides none. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., triggering hover menus), requirements (e.g., element visibility), or error handling—just a bare action statement.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for a simple interaction tool, earning the highest score for structure.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits context about return values, session handling, and how hover relates to other browser actions, leaving the agent underinformed for a browser automation task.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters ('selector' and 'sessionId') are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Hover') and the resource ('an element'), using a specific verb+noun structure. It uniquely identifies the operation among siblings like browser_click and browser_fill, but does not explicitly name alternatives or add nuance, so it stops short of the highest tier.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use hover versus other actions, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent without context for selecting it over alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.