osascript MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's capabilities ('Full access to system automation'), constraints ('Only file deletion commands are blocked for safety'), and scope ('on macOS'), covering key behavioral traits like safety measures and system access without contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key capabilities and a safety constraint in just two sentences. Every sentence adds essential value without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (system automation with safety constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good context on capabilities and limitations. However, it lacks details on error handling, output format, or execution environment, leaving some gaps for a high-risk tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description does not add specific meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., script syntax or language details), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Execute AppleScript or JavaScript for Automation') and the resource ('on macOS'), with explicit scope ('Full access to system automation including shell commands, app control, and System Events'). It distinguishes the tool's capabilities comprehensively without siblings to differentiate from.

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 description implies usage for macOS automation tasks but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other scripting tools or direct system commands). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the safety block on file deletion.

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