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 of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal detail. It does not specify the return format (object, string, array), what happens if the selector matches multiple elements, error handling for invalid selectors, or whether this triggers layout recalculation.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with no filler. The primary purpose ('Get computed CSS styles') appears immediately, followed by the optional filtering capability. 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 the complexity of CSS computed styles (potentially hundreds of properties) and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to describe the output structure, pagination (if applicable), or performance characteristics that would help an agent handle the response correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'Optionally filter specific properties,' which reinforces the optional nature of the `properties` parameter, though this is already inferable from the schema's required array. It does not add syntax details or examples beyond what the schema provides.

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 gets 'computed CSS styles' (specific technical term) for an element. It identifies the resource (CSS styles) and action (get). However, it does not distinguish from siblings like `safari_get_element` (likely returns DOM structure) or `safari_css_coverage` (tracks CSS usage), which would help an agent select the correct tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded), when to prefer computed styles over inline styles, or how it differs from `safari_get_element` or accessibility tools.

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