Safari MCP Server

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the aggregation behavior (combining all storage types) and format, but omits important operational details: whether it captures httpOnly cookies, third-party vs first-party scope, security/privacy implications of exporting credentials, or size limitations.

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 structure is perfectly front-loaded with the core function ('Export all storage state...') followed by an em-dash providing the use-case justification. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 simplicity (zero parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials by specifying both what is extracted (all storage types) and the return format (JSON). For a stateless read operation, this is sufficient, though mentioning that it returns the JSON data explicitly would strengthen it further.

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 input schema has zero parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics where none exist, and the absence of parameters is implicitly clear from the description's focus on the export action itself.

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 (Export), the comprehensive scope (all storage state: cookies + localStorage + sessionStorage), and the output format (JSON). It effectively distinguishes this from siblings like safari_get_cookies or safari_local_storage by emphasizing it captures all storage types together.

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 context for when to use the tool ('saving and restoring login sessions'), but it fails to mention the critical sibling safari_import_storage needed for the actual restoration process, potentially misleading agents into thinking this tool handles both operations. It also lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., being on the target page).

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