Safari MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It valuably discloses output structure (JSON with headers+rows) compensating for missing output schema, but omits safety profile (read-only vs destructive), error behavior, or state side effects.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with core functionality and output format, followed by use case. Every word earns 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?

Given no output schema, describing the JSON structure (headers+rows) is essential and present. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state it operates on the current Safari page context, though implied by tool naming convention.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for 'selector' and 'limit'. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, warranting 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?

Specific verb 'Extract' + resource 'HTML tables' + output format 'structured JSON (headers + rows)'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling extraction tools like safari_extract_images and safari_extract_links by specifying table-specific processing.

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?

Provides implied usage context ('Perfect for scraping data tables') but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus other extraction tools or prerequisites (e.g., requiring a page navigation first).

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