Scroll a targeted Rohitab control in the background by specifying its handle and direction, enabling GUI navigation without bringing the API Monitor window to the foreground.
Scroll an exact Rohitab control in the background.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | No | ||
| direction | Yes | ||
| window_title | No | ||
| control_handle | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.26Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'In the background' does disclose one meaningful trait (it does not require the window to be foregrounded), but there is no information about required control types, failure behavior, permissions, or whether the scroll persists/wraps.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the bare verb-object, and no operative detail follows.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a GUI-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the description omits everything an agent needs: valid direction values, control identification rules, and background-execution constraints.
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% across four parameters, and the description compensates for none of it. Critically, 'direction' has no enum and no documented accepted values, and 'control_handle' vs 'window_title' precedence is unexplained, leaving the agent unable to form a valid call.
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 gives a specific verb ('Scroll') and a resource ('Rohitab control'), which is more than a tautology. However, 'exact Rohitab control' is jargon that doesn't clarify which control or how it is identified, and it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as api_monitor_gui_select, api_monitor_gui_click_point, or api_monitor_gui_key.
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?
There is no indication of when to use scrolling versus other GUI interaction tools (click, key, select), nor any prerequisites or preconditions. The phrase 'in the background' hints at a usage mode but not at when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.