Scroll a chosen element into the browser's visible viewport to enable interaction or inspection.
scroll_into_view("#target") — 滚动到可见
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": "scroll_into_view"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sel | No | ||
| tab | No |
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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It gives an example but doesn't state whether this triggers scrolling only, whether it waits for visibility, whether it fails if the element isn't found, or whether it has any side effects. Critical behavioral details 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 extremely short, which is arguably concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. A useful example is present, which aids comprehension, but the brevity borders on inadequacy given the tool's ambiguity with close sibling tools.
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?
This tool has 2 parameters (one optional integer tab, one string selector), zero required params, no annotations, and no output schema. Given the ambiguity with scroll_to and scroll_wheel siblings, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role relative to its siblings, the behavior of the tab parameter, or expected outcomes.
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 0%, meaning the description must compensate. It references a selector in the example but doesn't clarify the format or required syntax of the 'sel' parameter beyond the CSS-like '#target' hint, and says nothing about 'tab'. The description adds only minimal value over the raw 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 scroll_into_view("#target") — 滚动到可见 is minimal and partially a tautology. It translates roughly to 'scroll to visible' but doesn't clearly state whether this scrolls an element into view, scrolls a container, or what 'visible' means in context. It does show a usage example with a selector, but the distinction from siblings like scroll_to and scroll_wheel is not elaborated.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools scroll_to and scroll_wheel exist, but the description offers no differentiation (e.g., scroll_to targets a selector, scroll_wheel simulates wheel input, while scroll_into_view might assert visibility). The example selector hints at usage but provides no contextual rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.