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. It fails to mention that this operation is destructive (overwrites existing clipboard content), requires specific permissions/user gestures in Safari, or whether it succeeds silently on failure.

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 concise at six words with no wasted text. While efficient, it borders on underspecification and could benefit from one additional sentence covering behavioral constraints without sacrificing clarity.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description meets minimum viability by identifying the core function. However, given the security-sensitive nature of clipboard operations and lack of annotations, it omits critical context about permissions and side effects.

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% for the single 'text' parameter, which is adequately documented in the schema itself. The description does not add additional semantic context (e.g., length limits, encoding), warranting the baseline score.

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 action ('Write') and target ('system clipboard'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'safari_clipboard_read' through the verb choice. However, it lacks explicit scope clarification (e.g., whether this overwrites existing clipboard content).

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 like 'safari_type_text' (direct input) or 'safari_clipboard_read' (verification), nor does it mention prerequisites such as user interaction requirements for clipboard access.

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