Safari MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While it specifies the 'text' content limitation, it fails to describe the return format (string? object?), error behavior for empty or non-text clipboards, or permission requirements.

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?

Extremely efficient at 6 words with zero redundancy. The parenthetical '(text)' is essential for scope definition, making every word earn 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?

Adequate for a simple parameterless getter, but lacks description of return values since no output schema exists. Should indicate whether it returns a string, null, or error when clipboard is empty or contains images.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, meeting the baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. No parameter description is required or expected.

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 (Read), resource (clipboard content), and scope limitation (text), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tool safari_clipboard_write (write vs read) and safari_paste_image (text vs image operations).

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Read' contrasting with sibling 'write' and 'paste' operations, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus safari_paste_image or behavior when clipboard contains non-text data.

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