Safari MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but only states 'Read,' implying a safe non-destructive operation. It fails to specify return format (array of objects?), error behavior when DB/store doesn't exist, or whether this retrieves all records or requires pagination via the limit parameter.

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?

Single sentence with no redundant words. Efficiently conveys core function. However, given the complete absence of annotations and output schema, the description may be overly terse—additional behavioral context would be appropriate rather than excessive.

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?

For a 3-parameter read operation with 100% schema coverage and simple types, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of return value description and error handling guidance leaves gaps that prevent a higher score.

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 description coverage is 100%, with dbName, storeName, and limit all documented in the schema. The description mentions 'IndexedDB database store' which loosely maps to the parameters but adds no additional semantic context, syntax guidance, or usage examples beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Read') and resource ('records from an IndexedDB database store'). It distinguishes from sibling safari_list_indexed_dbs by specifying 'records' versus database listing. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify this operates on Safari browser data, though the tool name prefix implies this.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use versus alternatives, prerequisites, or workflow. Missing critical context that safari_list_indexed_dbs should likely be called first to obtain valid dbName values, and that storeName must be known beforehand. No mention of error conditions.

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