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. It successfully discloses what data is extracted (scope), but omits safety profile (read-only vs destructive), whether it operates on the current page context, or the return format structure. It confirms no parameters are needed, matching the empty schema.

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 a single efficient sentence structured as 'action: specific examples'. Every word earns its place—'Extract all meta tags' establishes the operation, and the colon-delimited list provides exhaustive scope without verbosity.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing all extracted content types. However, it should ideally specify that it operates on the current page and indicate whether the return is a structured object or raw HTML.

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. According to the scoring rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed to extract all meta tags.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('meta tags'), then enumerates exactly what gets extracted (title, description, canonical, OG tags, Twitter cards, JSON-LD, alternate languages, RSS feeds). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like safari_extract_images or safari_analyze_page by scope.

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 implied usage through its exhaustive list of extracted metadata types, suggesting when to use it (when you need SEO/social metadata). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over safari_analyze_page or prerequisites like requiring a page to be loaded first.

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