Safari MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, but description carries full burden excellently: discloses handling of React controlled inputs/ProseMirror/Draft.js, clarifies replacement behavior ('replaces existing'), and warns about ref expiration after snapshots (prefix changes detail).

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?

Well-structured with logical flow: core function → special capabilities (React editors) → usage intent → alternatives → critical warning. Every sentence provides essential information without 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?

Comprehensive coverage for a complex interaction tool: addresses various input types, complex editor frameworks, ref management constraints, and differentiation from similar fill-type siblings (safari_fill_form, safari_fill_and_submit implicitly).

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 has 100% coverage establishing baseline 3. Description adds valuable operational context about 'ref' parameter lifecycle (expiration after new snapshots) and clarifies that 'value' replaces rather than appends, warranting elevation above baseline.

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?

Description opens with specific verb+resource ('Fill/replace value in an input, textarea, select, OR contenteditable') and explicitly distinguishes from siblings safari_replace_editor and safari_type_text by naming them as alternatives for different contexts.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use for SETTING a value') and provides clear alternatives ('use safari_replace_editor instead', 'use safari_type_text'). Includes critical prerequisite about taking a fresh snapshot when using refs.

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