Scroll through web pages randomly with natural timing to mimic human behavior and avoid bot detection.
Perform random scrolling with natural timing
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "random_scroll"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. While 'natural timing' hints at human-like delays, it does not explain whether scrolling is continuous, random in direction, or how long it lasts. Key behavioral traits like potential side effects or interruptibility are absent.
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 ('Perform random scrolling') and the qualifier ('with natural timing') adds value without bloat. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits usage context and behavioral details. It is minimally viable but lacks the richness expected for a browser automation tool, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered trivially. The description does not need to add parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to clarify beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool performs random scrolling with natural timing, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'navigate' and 'click' by focusing on scroll behavior. The purpose is unambiguous in the browser automation context.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where random scrolling is beneficial, such as mimicking human behavior, nor any exclusions or alternatives. The description only states what it does without contextual use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.