Safari 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 but offers minimal context. It does not clarify whether this affects the browser's actual network cache or just the capture log, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if no capture is active.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action verb and contains zero redundant words. For a simple, parameter-less utility function, this length is appropriately minimal.

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?

While the description suffices for basic invocation, it lacks contextual completeness regarding the network capture workflow (relationship to safari_start_network_capture and safari_network). Given this is a state-mutating operation with no output schema or annotations, additional context about side effects would be valuable.

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, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter explanation, though it implicitly confirms no filtering options exist by stating 'all' requests are cleared.

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 provides a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('captured network requests'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like safari_clear_console and safari_clear_field. However, it stops short of explicitly clarifying its relationship to safari_start_network_capture or the network capture lifecycle.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (such as needing to start network capture first) or typical usage patterns (e.g., clearing between test scenarios).

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