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 disclosure burden. It successfully communicates the prerequisite dependency but fails to describe what happens if called without starting first, whether messages are consumed/cleared after retrieval, or the return format structure.

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?

Perfectly concise: single sentence front-loaded with verb and resource, followed by critical prerequisite in parentheses. No redundant words or structural waste.

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 single-parameter simplicity and complete schema coverage, the description is sufficient for basic usage. It appropriately omits parameter details handled by the schema. Minor gap: no output description (since no output schema exists), though the action is intuitive enough.

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% ('Console level to filter'), so the structured schema fully documents the parameter. The description mentions 'filtered by level' which aligns with but does not extend beyond the schema documentation. Baseline score appropriate 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 tool 'Get[s] console messages' with specific filtering by level. It distinguishes from sibling safari_get_console by emphasizing the filtering capability, though it could more explicitly contrast with the unfiltered variant.

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?

Excellent prerequisite guidance: '(must call safari_start_console first)' explicitly states the required setup sequence, preventing incorrect invocation. This clearly establishes when to use this tool versus its prerequisite sibling.

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